Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to the request for continued examination and amendments filed 4/21/26. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-3, 16, 32, and 36-38 have been amended and no claims have been added nor cancelled. As such, claims 1-50 are pending in the instant application.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Note: the new replacement Figs. 16C and 16D were correctly filed as non-photograph black-and-white drawings but original filed drawings include such photograph/color drawings.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "110" and "1120" have both been used to designate the head strap. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 38-39 and 47-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 38, the newly amended language “the filter has a honeycomb structure” introduces new matter not found in the disclosure as originally filed. The disclosure supports the filter support (emphasis added) having a honeycomb structure in para. 00124, but does not support the filter itself having this honeycomb structure.
Claims 39 and 47-50 are rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “generally vertically and generally perpendicular” in claim 1 line 8-9 (emphasis added) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not known what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘generally vertically’ or ‘generally perpendicular’.
The term “generally vertically and generally perpendicular” in claim 16 line 10 (emphasis added) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not known what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘generally vertically’ or ‘generally perpendicular’.
The term “generally vertically and generally perpendicular” in claim 32 line 10 (emphasis added) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not known what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘generally vertically’ or ‘generally perpendicular’.
The term “generally vertically and generally perpendicular” in claim 37 line 9-10 (emphasis added) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not known what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘generally vertically’ or ‘generally perpendicular’.
Claims 2-15, 17-31, 33-36, and 38-50 are rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11, 37, and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Collins et al. (2024/0423305).
Regarding claim 1, Collins discloses a respirator for protecting against airborne particles (see abstract, para. 0003, and Fig. 1-15 for example), which includes a face gasket for providing a seal around a mouth and a nose of a wearer (see Fig. 1-3 face gasket 220, para. 0048 and abstract; Figs. 9-14 face gasket 220, para. 0058-0059), a frame attached to the face gasket (see Fig. 1-3 frame 200, para. 0048; Figs. 9-14 frame defined by 21A & 210B, para. 0058); a filter compression ring removably attached to the frame (see Fig. 1-3, compression ring being element 240, para. 0048, removable as it allows for “replaceable filter 230” to be replaced; Figs. 9-14 compression ring 240, para. 0058-0059); and a filter for filtering airborne particles from air (see Fig. 1-3, filter 230, see para. 0048; Figs. 9-14 filter 230, para. 0058), wherein the filter is positioned between the frame and the filter compression ring (see Fig. 3, para. 0048; Fig. 15 and para. 0058-0059), the filter being adapted to cover an entire surface of the frame opposite the face gasket and extending generally vertically and generally perpendicular to an opening of the wearer’s mouth (see Fig. 1-3 which shows filter 230 being sized/shaped such that it covers entire front surface of frame 200 and which extends generally vertically and perpendicular to an opening of the wearer’s mouth as can be seen from these figures and also Fig. 15; embodiment in Figs. 9-15 show this as well), the frame and the face gasket together defining an interior cavity when the respirator is worn (interior cavity 120 which defines plenum chamber), the filter being disposed in a plane that is orthogonal to a front-to-back axis of the interior cavity (see Fig. 1-3 and 9-15), and the face gasket being configured to space the filter from the wearer’s face to provide the interior cavity as a plenum volume between the filter and the wearer’s face (see Fig. 1-3 and para. 0047-0048, the filter 230 is spaced from the wearer’s face by the width, in front-to-back direction, of frame 200 and gasket 220; see also Fig. 9-15), and the filter compression ring extending over a front portion of the filter and over a top portion of the frame so that the filter is pressed against the frame (see Fig. 1-3, filter compression ring 240 having inner surfaces which extend over front portion of filter 230 and rearwardly extending flange/surface including clips 242 which extend over top portion of the frame which has complementary front face shape, i.e. at the bridge of the user’s nose when worn as can be seen from these figures; embodiment in Figs. 9-15 showing similar).
Regarding claim 2, the Collins device’s frame includes a filter support for supporting the filter over the frame and for maintaining a shape of the filter (see Figs. 1-3 in particular Fig. 2 which is a rear view of the device and showing grills of the frame on which the filter 230 is supported to maintain shape, see para. 0050 and 0059; see Fig. 9-14, 210A itself or the grilles 246 thereon being the filter support, see para. 0059).
Regarding claim 11, the Collins device’s face gasket is configured to be positioned to terminate at a nose bridge of the wearer (see Fig. 15 and abstract for example).
Regarding claim 37, Collins discloses a respirator for protecting against airborne particles (see abstract, para. 0003, and Fig. 1-15 for example), which includes a face gasket for providing a seal around a mouth and a nose of a wearer (see Fig. 1-3, face gasket 220, para. 0048 and abstract; Figs. 9-14 face gasket 220, para. 0058-0059), a frame attached to the face gasket (see Fig. 1-3, frame 200, para. 0048; Figs. 9-14 frame defined by 21A & 210B, para. 0058), the frame including a filter support configured to support a filter while maintaining a shape of the filter (see Figs. 1-3 in particular Fig. 2 which is a rear view of the device and showing grilles of the frame on which the filter 230 is supported to maintain shape, see para. 0050 and 0059; see Fig. 9-14, 210A itself or the grilles 246 thereon being the filter support, see para. 0059); a filter compression ring removably attached to the frame (see Fig. 1-3, compression ring being element 240, para. 0048, removable as it allows for “replaceable filter 230” to be replaced; Figs. 9-14 compression ring 240, para. 0058-0059); and a filter for filtering airborne particles from air (see Fig. 1-3, filter 320, see para. 0048; Figs. 9-14 filter 230, para. 0058), wherein the filter being positioned between the frame and the filter compression ring (see Fig. 3, para. 0048; Fig. 9-15 para. 0058-0059), wherein the filter is adapted to cover an entire surface of the frame opposite the face gasket and extending generally vertically and generally perpendicular to an opening of the wearer’s mouth (see Fig. 1-3 which shows filter 230 being sized/shaped such that it covers entire front surface of frame 200 and which extends generally vertically and perpendicular to an opening of the wearer’s mouth as can be seen from these figures and also Fig. 15; embodiment in Figs. 9-15 show this as well), the frame and the face gasket together defining an interior cavity when the respirator is worn (interior cavity 120 which defines plenum chamber), the filter being disposed in a plane that is orthogonal to a front-to-back axis of the interior cavity (see Fig. 1-3, 9-15), and the face gasket being configured to space the filter from the wearer’s face to provide the interior cavity as a plenum volume between the filter and the wearer’s face (see Fig. 1-3 and para. 0047-0048, the filter 230 is spaced from the wearer’s face by the width, in front-to-back direction, of frame 200 and gasket 220; see Fig. 9-15), and the filter compression ring extending over a front portion of the filter and over a top portion of the frame so that the filter is pressed against the frame (see Fig. 1-3, filter compression ring 240 having inner surfaces which extend over front portion of filter 230 and rearwardly extending flange/surface including clips 242 which extend over top portion of the frame which has complementary front face shape, i.e. at the bridge of the user’s nose when worn as can be seen from these figures; embodiment in Figs. 9-15 showing similar).
Regarding claim 46, the Collins device’s face gasket is configured to be positioned to terminate at a nose bridge of the wearer (see Collins Fig. 15 and abstract for example).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins in view of PEM Motion (DE 202020102790) (see attached translation).
Regarding claim 3, the Collins device is silent as to the filter support having a honeycomb structure (the grille pattern 246 of Collins interpreted to not be honeycomb shaped); however, PEM Motion teaches a similar respirator device which include frame/support elements with honeycomb structures (see PEM Motion Fig. 1-2, 4-7, grid 42 having honeycomb structure, see pg. 5, 8, and 9 of the translation). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Collins device’s filter support to have a honeycomb structure, as taught by PEM Motion, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known shape for another and one would expect the modified Collins device to perform equally as well. See also MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Collins device’s filter is removably attached to the filter compression ring (see Collins para. 0048 and Fig. 1-3, filter is replaceable and therefore removably attached to the compression ring 240; see Fig. 9-14 and para. 0058-0059).
Regarding claim 38, the Collins device is silent as to the filter having a honeycomb structure (the grille pattern 246 of Collins interpreted to not be honeycomb shaped); however, PEM Motion teaches a similar respirator device which include filter/frame/support elements with honeycomb structures (see PEM Motion Fig. 1-2, 4-7, grid 42 having honeycomb structure, see pg. 5, 8, and 9 of the translation). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Collins device’s filter to have a honeycomb structure, as taught by PEM Motion, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known shape for another and one would expect the modified Collins device to perform equally as well. See also MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding claim 39, the modified Collins device’s filter is removably attached to the filter compression ring (see Collins para. 0048 and Fig. 1-3, filter is replaceable and therefore removably attached to the compression ring 240; see Fig. 9-14 and para. 0058-0059).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins in view of Stranberg et al. (2021/0346733).
Regarding claim 12, the Collins device is silent as to including the first and second straps as claimed; however, Stranberg discloses a similar device which includes first and second straps removably attached to a frame to secure a respirator to the wearer, the first strap configured to wrap around the head of the wearer and the second strap configured to wrap behind a neck of the wearer (see Stranberg Fig. 1, first strap 22a, second strap 22b, see para. 0022, Fig. 4, strap mounting elements 49, para. 0030, see also Fig. 9). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Collins device to include the first and second strap arrangement, as taught by Stranberg, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Collins device to perform equally as well.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins and Stranberg as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Sabolis et al. (2016/0001101).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Collins device is silent as to the length of the first and second straps explicitly being adjustable; however, Sabolis teaches a similar device which includes length adjustable straps (see Sabolis Fig. 5-6, 8 and 10; para. 0066-0067). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Collins device’s straps to be length adjustable, as taught by Sabolis, in order to provide the ability for the user to adjust the fit of the respirator on their face (Sabolis para. 0066-0067).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Collins device is silent as to the second strap including first and second portions configured to attach via a fastener; however, Sabolis teaches a similar device which includes straps made of portions connected together with a fastener (see Sabolis Fig. 5-6, 8, and 10, para. 0066-0067, strap portions connected via fastener 126). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Collins device’s second strap to include first and second portions attached via a fastener, as taught by Sabolis in order to provide the ability for the user to adjust the fit of the respirator on their face (Sabolis para. 0066-0067).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins and Stranberg as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Seppala et al. (2015/0053206).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Collins device is silent as to the first strap including a skull cap configured to be positioned on a crown of the head of the wearer; however, Seppala teaches a similar respirator with a first strap having a skull cap as claimed (see Seppala Fig. 4, skull cap 46, para. 0019). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Collins device’s first strap to include a skull cap, as taught by Seppala, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element (strap type) for another and one would expect the modified Collins device to perform equally as well and such a strap provides a soft textured feel (see Seppala para. 0019).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins in view of Sabolis.
Regarding claim 5, the Collins device is silent as to the filter being fused to the frame; however, Sabolis teaches a similar respirator device whose filter is fused to a frame (see Sabolis para. 0063). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Collins device’s filter to be fused to the frame, as taught by Sabolis, in order to provide a single-use type respirator (to ensure a new/clean filter is used before each time a user enters hazardous environment).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Collins device’s filter is ultrasonically fused to the frame (see Sabolis para. 0063).
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins in view of Szasz et al. (2019/0358473) and Eswarappa (2002/0026942).
Regarding claim 7, the Collins device is silent as to further including a safety module including one or more air pressure sensors for obtaining pressure measurements in the space of the filter and wearer and a processor in communication with the sensors to analyze the measurements and a vibration motor or status indicator; however, Szasz discloses a similar respirator which includes a safety module which monitors the life of the filter with an indicator (see Szasz para. 0019, 0023-0024, 0092 disclosing various sensors, para. 0095, 0103-0105, 0110-0111) and Eswarappa discloses a filter cartridge whose filter life is measured based on air pressure drop across the filter (see Eswarappa para. 0079). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Collins device to include a safety module, as taught by Szasz and Eswarappa, in order to provide the ability to monitor the lifetime of the filter and notify a user when to replace the filter (Szasz para. 0023-0024 and 0103-0105).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Collins device’s processor is configured to determine baseline pressure, current pressure and determine whether current pressure exceeds the baseline by a threshold and trigger the vibration motor or visual indicator to generate an alert (see Eswarappa para. 0079, Szasz 0019, 0023-0024, 0092, 0095, 0103-0105, 0110-0111).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Collins device’s safety module further includes a motion sensor coupled to the processor configured to analyze motion measurements obtained (see Szasz para. 0096, 0103).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Collins device’s safety module includes a communication interface configure to transmit measurements to an external device for analysis (see Szasz para. 0018-0024 which discloses air quality sensing and communication with a server via a network, see para. 0077 and 0087-0090).
Claim(s) 16-18 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins in view of Wilson et al. (2004/0069302).
Regarding claim 16, Collins discloses a respirator for protecting against airborne particles (see abstract, para. 0003, and Fig. 1-15 for example), which includes a face gasket for providing a seal around a mouth and a nose of a wearer (see Fig. 1-3, face gasket 220, para. 0048 and abstract; Figs. 9-14 face gasket 220, para. 0058-0059), a frame attached to the face gasket (see Fig. 1-3, frame 200, para. 0048; Figs. 9-14 frame defined by 21A & 210B, para. 0058); a filter compression ring removably attached to the frame (see Fig. 1-3, compression ring being element 240, para. 0048, removable as it allows for “replaceable filter 230” to be replaced; Figs. 9-14 compression ring 240, para. 0058-0059); and a filter for filtering airborne particles from air (see Fig. 1-3, filter 320, see para. 0048; Figs. 9-14 filter 230, para. 0058), wherein the filter is positioned between the frame and the filter compression ring (see Fig. 3, para. 0048, Fig. 15 and para. 0058-0059), the filter adapted to cover an entire surface of the frame opposite the face gasket and extending generally vertically and generally perpendicular to an opening of the wearer’s mouth (see Fig. 1-3 which shows filter 230 being sized/shaped such that it covers entire front surface of frame 200 and which extends generally vertically and perpendicular to an opening of the wearer’s mouth as can be seen from these figures and also Fig. 15; embodiment in Figs. 9-15 show this as well), the frame and the face gasket together defining an interior cavity when the respirator is worn (interior cavity 120 which defines plenum chamber) and disposed in a plane orthogonal to a front-to-back axis of an interior cavity defined by the frame and the face gasket when the respirator is worn (see Fig. 1-3, para. 0047-0048, interior cavity 120, Fig. 15), and the filter compression ring extending over a front portion of the filter and over a top portion of the frame so that the filter is pressed against the frame (see Fig. 1-3, filter compression ring 240 having inner surfaces which extend over front portion of filter 230 and rearwardly extending flange/surface including clips 242 which extend over top portion of the frame which has complementary front face shape, i.e. at the bridge of the user’s nose when worn as can be seen from these figures; embodiment in Figs. 9-15 showing similar). Collins is silent as to including an eye protection removably attached to an outside surface of the face gasket and extending above the frame; however, Wilson teaches a similar respirator device which includes an eye protection as claimed (see Wilson Fig. 3, eye protection 10, para. 0077). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Collins device to include an eye protection, as taught by Wilson, in order to provide protection for the wearer’s eyes (Wilson abstract).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Collins device’s eye protection is configured to wrap around a face of the wearer (see Wilson Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Collins device’s eye protection includes a lip configured to extend in a direction orthogonal to a plane of a lens of the eye protection (see Wilson Fig. 33 and para. 0118, lip 100; a plane can be drawn through the lens of the eye protection of Wilson such that the lip 100 extends orthogonally to this plane, such as a horizontal plane through the lens).
Regarding claim 27, the modified Collins device’s face gasket is configured to be positioned to terminate at a nose bridge of the wearer (see Collins Fig. 15 and abstract for example).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins and Wilson as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Johnstone (8,365,732).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Collins device includes first and second branches as claimed (see Wilson Fig. 3-4 branches 11, see also Fig. 14-15, 30-31), but is silent as to the eye protection explicitly including a lens portion; however, Johnstone teaches a similar respirator and eye protection system whose eye protection includes a lens (see Johnstone Fig. 1 and col. 2 ln. 64, lens 102). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Collins device’s eye protection to explicitly include a lens portion, as taught by Johnstone, in order to provide the wearer eye correction lens.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Collins device’s lens includes an aperture and the frame including a peg to couple to the aperture to attach the lens to the frame (see Wilson Fig. 3-4, aperture 12 and peg 4, para. 0075, 0077).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins and Wilson as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Sabolis.
Regarding claim 21, the modified Collins device is silent as to the filter being fused to the frame; however, Sabolis teaches a similar respirator device whose filter is fused to a frame (see Sabolis para. 0063). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Collins device’s filter to be fused to the frame, as taught by Sabolis, in order to provide a single-use type respirator (to ensure a new/clean filter is used before each time a user enters hazardous environment).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Collins device’s filter is ultrasonically fused to the frame (see Sabolis para. 0063).
Claim(s) 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins and Wilson as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Szasz and Eswarappa.
Regarding claim 23, the modified Collins device is silent as to further including a safety module including one or more air pressure sensors for obtaining pressure measurements in the space of the filter and wearer and a processor in communication with the sensors to analyze the measurements and a vibration motor or status indicator; however, Szasz discloses a similar respirator which includes a safety module which monitors the life of the filter with an indicator (see Szasz para. 0019, 0023-0024, 0092 disclosing various sensors, para. 0095, 0103-0105, 0110-0111) and Eswarappa discloses a filter cartridge whose filter life is measured based on air pressure drop across the filter (see Eswarappa para. 0079). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Collins device to include a safety module, as taught by Szasz and Eswarappa, in order to provide the ability to monitor the lifetime of the filter and notify a user when to replace the filter (Szasz para. 0023-0024 and 0103-0105).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Collins device’s processor is configured to determine baseline pressure, current pressure and determine whether current pressure exceeds the baseline by a threshold and trigger the vibration motor or visual indicator to generate an alert (see Eswarappa para. 0079, Szasz 0019, 0023-0024, 0092, 0095, 0103-0105, 0110-0111).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Collins device’s safety module further includes a motion sensor coupled to the processor configured to analyze motion measurements obtained (see Szasz para. 0096, 0103).
Regarding claim 26, the modified Collins device’s safety module includes a communication interface configure to transmit measurements to an external device for analysis (see Szasz para. 0018-0024 which discloses air quality sensing and communication with a server via a network, see para. 0077 and 0087-0090).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins and Wilson as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Stranberg.
Regarding claim 28, the modified Collins device is silent as to including the first and second straps as claimed; however, Stranberg discloses a similar device which includes first and second straps removably attached to a frame to secure a respirator to the wearer, the first strap configured to wrap around the head of the wearer and the second strap configured to wrap behind a neck of the wearer (see Stranberg Fig. 1, first strap 22a, second strap 22b, see para. 0022, Fig. 4, strap mounting elements 49, para. 0030, see also Fig. 9). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Collins device to include the first and second strap arrangement, as taught by Stranberg, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Collins device to perform equally as well.
Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins, Wilson, and Stranberg as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Sabolis.
Regarding claim 29, the modified Collins device is silent as to the length of the first and second straps explicitly being adjustable; however, Sabolis teaches a similar device which includes length adjustable straps (see Sabolis Fig. 5-6, 8 and 10; para. 0066-0067). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Collins device’s straps to be length adjustable, as taught by Sabolis, in order to provide the ability for the user to adjust the fit of the respirator on their face (Sabolis para. 0066-0067).
Regarding claim 30, the modified Collins device is silent as to the second strap including first and second portions configured to attach via a fastener; however, Sabolis teaches a similar device which includes straps made of portions connected together with a fastener (see Sabolis Fig. 5-6, 8, and 10, para. 0066-0067, strap portions connected via fastener 126). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Collins device’s second strap to include first and second portions attached via a fastener, as taught by Sabolis in order to provide the ability for the user to adjust the fit of the respirator on their face (Sabolis para. 0066-0067).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins, Wilson, Stranberg, and Sabolis as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Seppala.
Regarding claim 31, the modified Collins device is silent as to the first strap including a skull cap configured to be positioned on a crown of the head of the user; however, Seppala teaches a similar respirator with a first strap having a skull cap as claimed (see Seppala Fig. 4, skull cap 46, para. 0019). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Collins device’s first strap to include a skull cap, as taught by Seppala, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element (strap type) for another and one would expect the modified Collins device to perform equally as well and such a strap provides a soft textured feel (see Seppala para. 0019).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins in view of Szasz.
Regarding claim 32, Collins discloses a respirator for protecting against airborne particles (see abstract, para. 0003, and Fig. 1-15 for example), which includes a face gasket for providing a seal around a mouth and a nose of a wearer (see Fig. 1-3, face gasket 220, para. 0048 and abstract; Figs. 9-14 face gasket 220, para. 0058-0059), a frame attached to the face gasket (see Fig. 1-3, frame 200, para. 0048; Figs. 9-14 frame defined by 21A & 210B, para. 0058); a filter compression ring removably attached to the frame (see Fig. 1-3, compression ring being element 240, para. 0048, removable as it allows for “replaceable filter 230” to be replaced; Figs. 9-14 compression ring 240, para. 0058-0059); and a filter for filtering airborne particles from air (see Fig. 1-3, filter 320, see para. 0048; Figs. 9-14 filter 230, para. 0058), wherein the filter is suspended between the filter compression ring and the frame (see Fig. 1-3 and para. 0048; Fig. 9-15 para. 0058-0059), the filter adapted to cover an entire surface of the frame opposite the face gasket and extending generally vertically and generally perpendicular to an opening of the wearer’s mouth (see Fig. 1-3 which shows filter 230 being sized/shaped such that it covers entire front surface of frame 200 and which extends generally vertically and perpendicular to an opening of the wearer’s mouth as can be seen from these figures and also Fig. 15; embodiment in Figs. 9-15 show this as well), the frame and the face gasket together defining an interior cavity when the respirator is worn (interior cavity 120 which defines plenum chamber) and disposed in a plane orthogonal to a front-to-back axis of an interior cavity defined by the frame and the face gasket when the respirator is worn (see Fig. 1-3, para. 0047-0048, interior cavity 120, Fig. 15), and the filter compression ring extending over a front portion of the filter and over a top portion of the frame so that the filter is pressed against the frame (see Fig. 1-3, filter compression ring 240 having inner surfaces which extend over front portion of filter 230 and rearwardly extending flange/surface including clips 242 which extend over top portion of the frame which has complementary front face shape, i.e. at the bridge of the user’s nose when worn as can be seen from these figures; embodiment in Figs. 9-15 showing similar). Collins is silent as to including a communications module configured to communicate with an external device; however, Szasz discloses a similar device which includes such a communications module (see Szasz para. 0018-0024 which discloses air quality sensing and communication with a server via a network, see para. 0077 and 0087-0090). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Collins device to include such air quality sensing feature and communications module for communicating with external device, as taught by Szasz, in order to provide the ability to monitor the air around the wearer (Szasz para. 0018-0024 and 0087).
Claim(s) 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colins and Szasz as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Arigue et al. (2021/0228920).
Regarding claim 33, the modified Collins device includes a communication interface (see Szasz para. 0018-0024, 0077 and 0087-0090), but is silent as to the communications module including one or more speakers and a microphone; however, Arigue teaches a similar respirator system which includes speakers and microphone (see Arigue para. 0066-0068). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Collins device’s communications module to include speakers and a microphone, as taught by Arigue, in order to provide the ability for the wearer to connect to and have phone conversations (Arigue para. 0067).
Regarding claim 34, the modified Collins device’s communications module further includes a motion sensor and a status light (see Szasz para. 0096, 0103, 0024, 0090, 0105, 0110-0111).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins and Szasz as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Wilson.
Regarding claim 35, the modified Collins device is silent as to including an eye protection removably attached to an outside surface of the face gasket and extending above the frame; however, Wilson teaches a similar respirator device which includes an eye protection as claimed (see Wilson Fig. 3, eye protection 10, para. 0077). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Collins device to include an eye protection, as taught by Wilson, in order to provide protection for the wearer’s eyes (Wilson abstract).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins and Szasz as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Stranberg.
Regarding claim 36, the modified Collins device is silent as to including the first and second straps as claimed; however, Stranberg discloses a similar device which includes first and second straps removably attached to a frame to secure a respirator to the wearer, the first strap configured to wrap around the head of the wearer and the second strap configured to wrap behind a neck of the wearer (see Stranberg Fig. 1, first strap 22a, second strap 22b, see para. 0022, Fig. 4, strap mounting elements 49, para. 0030, see also Fig. 9). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Collins device to include the first and second strap arrangement, as taught by Stranberg, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Collins device to perform equally as well. The now modified Collins device’s communication module is configured to be removably mounted to the first strap adjacent to the ear (see Szasz para. 0077).
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins and PEM Motion as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Stranberg.
Regarding claim 47, the modified Collins device is silent as to including the first and second straps as claimed; however, Stranberg discloses a similar device which includes first and second straps removably attached to a frame to secure a respirator to the wearer, the first strap configured to wrap around the head of the wearer and the second strap configured to wrap behind a neck of the wearer (see Stranberg Fig. 1, first strap 22a, second strap 22b, see para. 0022, Fig. 4, strap mounting elements 49, para. 0030, see also Fig. 9). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Collins device to include the first and second strap arrangement, as taught by Stranberg, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Collins device to perform equally as well.
Claim(s) 48-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins, PEM Motion, and Stranberg as applied to claim 47 above, and further in view of Sabolis.
Regarding claim 48, the modified Collins device is silent as to the length of the first and second straps explicitly being adjustable; however, Sabolis teaches a similar device which includes length adjustable straps (see Sabolis Fig. 5-6, 8 and 10; para. 0066-0067). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Collins device’s straps to be length adjustable, as taught by Sabolis, in order to provide the ability for the user to adjust the fit of the respirator on their face (Sabolis para. 0066-0067).
Regarding claim 49, the modified Collins device is silent as to the second strap including first and second portions configured to attach via a fastener; however, Sabolis teaches a similar device which includes straps made of portions connected together with a fastener (see Sabolis Fig. 5-6, 8, and 10, para. 0066-0067, strap portions connected via fastener 126). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Collins device’s second strap to include first and second portions attached via a fastener, as taught by Sabolis in order to provide the ability for the user to adjust the fit of the respirator on their face (Sabolis para. 0066-0067).
Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins, PEM Motion, and Stranberg as applied to claim 47 above, and further in view of Seppala.
Regarding claim 50, the modified Collins device is silent as to the first strap including a skull cap configured to be positioned on a crown of the head of the wearer; however, Seppala teaches a similar respirator with a first strap having a skull cap as claimed (see Seppala Fig. 4, skull cap 46, para. 0019). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Collins device’s first strap to include a skull cap, as taught by Seppala, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element (strap type) for another and one would expect the modified Collins device to perform equally as well and such a strap provides a soft textured feel (see Seppala para. 0019).
Claim(s) 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins in view of Sabolis.
Regarding claim 40, the Collins device is silent as to the filter being fused to the frame; however, Sabolis teaches a similar respirator device whose filter is fused to a frame (see Sabolis para. 0063). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Collins device’s filter to be fused to the frame, as taught by Sabolis, in order to provide a single-use type respirator (to ensure a new/clean filter is used before each time a user enters hazardous environment).
Regarding claim 41, the Collins device’s filter is ultrasonically fused to the frame (see Sabolis para. 0063).
Claim(s) 42-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins in view of Szasz and Eswarappa.
Regarding claim 42, the Collins device is silent as to further including a safety module including one or more air pressure sensors for obtaining pressure measurements in the space of the filter and wearer and a processor in communication with the sensors to analyze the measurements and a vibration motor or status indicator; however, Szasz discloses a similar respirator which includes a safety module which monitors the life of the filter with an indicator (see Szasz para. 0019, 0023-0024, 0092 disclosing various sensors, para. 0095, 0103-0105, 0110-0111) and Eswarappa discloses a filter cartridge whose filter life is measured based on air pressure drop across the filter (see Eswarappa para. 0079). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Collins device to include a safety module, as taught by Szasz and Eswarappa, in order to provide the ability to monitor the lifetime of the filter and notify a user when to replace the filter (Szasz para. 0023-0024 and 0103-0105).
Regarding claim 43, the modified Collins device’s processor is configured to determine baseline pressure, current pressure and determine whether current pressure exceeds the baseline by a threshold and trigger the vibration motor or visual indicator to generate an alert (see Eswarappa para. 0079, Szasz 0019, 0023-0024, 0092, 0095, 0103-0105, 0110-0111).
Regarding claim 44, the modified Collins device’s safety module further includes a motion sensor coupled to the processor configured to analyze motion measurements obtained (see Szasz para. 0096, 0103).
Regarding claim 45, the modified Collins device’s safety module includes a communication interface configure to transmit measurements to an external device for analysis (see Szasz para. 0018-0024 which discloses air quality sensing and communication with a server via a network, see para. 0077 and 0087-0090).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that only black and white drawings were submitted and that this objection to the drawing should be withdrawn; however, the figures were presented in photograph format and not black and white technical drawing format. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1).
Applicant’s argument regarding the drawing objection of 110 and 1120 being incorrect (see pg. 12 of the response) is not well-taken. Para. 00142 includes an instance of reference character “1120” referring to the head strap which the rest of the disclosure uses “110” to refer to this element.
Applicant’s argument that the Collins reference does not disclose a filter adapted to cover the entire surface of the frame opposite the gasket and extending generally vertically and perpendicular to the opening of the wearer’s mouth or a filter compression ring extending over a front portion of the filter and over a top portion of the frame to press the filter against the frame (see pg. 15 of the response) is not well-taken. Collins discloses the filter compression ring extending over a front portion of the filter and top portion of the frame (Fig. 1-3, filter compression ring 240 having inner surfaces which extend over front portion of filter 230 and rearwardly extending flange/surface including clips 242 which extend over top portion of the frame which has complementary front face shape, i.e. at the bridge of the user’s nose when worn as can be seen from these figures; embodiment in Figs. 9-15 showing similar) and the filter covering an entire surface of the frame opposite the face gasket and extending generally vertically and generally perpendicular to an opening of the wearer’s mouth (see Fig. 1-3 which shows filter 230 being sized/shaped such that it covers entire front surface of frame 200 and which extends generally vertically and perpendicular to an opening of the wearer’s mouth as can be seen from these figures and also Fig. 15; embodiment in Figs. 9-15 show this as well), the frame and the face gasket together defining an interior cavity when the respirator is worn (interior cavity 120 which defines plenum chamber).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W STUART whose telephone number is (571)270-7490. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/COLIN W STUART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights