DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on May 12, 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 6, 13,and 15 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-20 are presently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-5, 8, 9, 16, and 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the at least one processor is further configured to: control the at least one sensor to detect a signal transmitted from a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag of the at least one filter” in lines 1-4. However, the “at least one sensor” has been defined as “at least one sensor configured to obtain sensing data related to a shape of the at least one filter” (see claim 1, lines 4-5). It is not clear how a sensor(s) that detects a shape of a filter can also detect an RFID tag of the filter. The specification describes these two functions as being performed by separate sensors at paragraphs [0084], [0094]. Thus, it is not clear if the claim is bringing in additional sensor(s) that identify the grade of the filter from the RFID tag or if the claim is attempting to claim that the sensor(s) that detect the shape of the filter are RFID tag sensor(s). Examiner suggests amending the limitation of claim 2 to read: --the at least one processor is further configured to control a radio-frequency identification (RFID) reader to detect a signal transmitted from a RFID tag of the at least one filter…-- to overcome the rejection.
Claims 3-5 are rejected based on their dependency to rejected claim 2. Examiner further suggests amending “the at least one sensor” in each of claim 3-5 to read --theRFID reader-- accordingly.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the at least one processor is further configured to: detect a color of the at least one filter by obtaining a color detection value related to the at least one filter from the at least one sensor” in lines 1-4. However, the “at least one sensor” has been defined as “at least one sensor configured to obtain sensing data related to a shape of the at least one filter” (see claim 1, lines 4-5). It is not clear how a sensor(s) that detects a shape of a filter can also detect a color of the filter. The specification describes these two functions as being performed by separate sensors at paragraphs [0115], [0094]. Thus, it is not clear if the claim is bringing in additional sensor(s) that detect the color of the filter to identify the grade of the filter or if the claim is attempting to claim that the sensor(s) that detect a shape of the filter are also color sensing sensor(s). Examiner suggests amending the limitation of claim 8 to read: -- the at least one processor is further configured to: detect a color of the at least one filter by obtaining a color detection value related to the at least one filter from color sensor…-- to overcome the rejection.
Claim 9 is rejected based on its dependency to rejected claim 8. Examiner further suggests amending “the at least one sensor” in claim 8 to read --the at least one color sensor-- accordingly.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "wherein the identifying the grade of the at least one filter comprises: detecting a color of the at least one filter by obtaining a color detection value related to the at least one filter from the at least one sensor” in lines 1-4. However, the “at least one sensor” has been defined as “at least one sensor configured to obtain sensing data related to a shape of the at least one filter” (see claim 13, lines 3-4). It is not clear how a sensor(s) that detects a shape of a filter can also detect a color of the filter. The specification describes these two functions as being performed by separate sensors at paragraphs [0115], [0094]. Thus, it is not clear if the claim is bringing in additional sensor(s) that detect the color of the filter to identify the grade of the filter or if the claim is attempting to claim that the sensor(s) detecting a shape of the filter are also color sensing sensor(s). Examiner suggests amending the limitation of claim 16 to read: wherein the identifying the grade of the at least one filter further comprises: detecting a color of the at least one filter by obtaining a color detection value related to the at least one filter from color sensor…-- to overcome the rejection.
Claim 17 is rejected based on its dependency to rejected claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
As to claim 1, line 1 positively recites “a face of a user”. It is suggested that the limitation be amended to read --An electronic mask configured to be worn over a face of a user…-- to overcome the rejection.
Claims 2-12 are rejected based on their dependency to rejected claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 10-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-5 and 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act, the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 13-15 and 18-20 are allowed.
Claim 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-16 of the remarks filed May 12, 2026, with respect to amended claims 1 and 13 and the Bae reference have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Bae broadly teaches that a filter recognition part 160 may recognize the number, an area, a height, depth, and the like of filter members 131 and 231 through various sensors for determining a capacity of the filter members. Bae separately discloses the recognition part 160 may recognize a unique protrusion on the on the filter members 131, 231 using a protrusion sensing means to identify a type of filter. However, Bae does not teach that the processor detects a shape of the filter by obtaining a shape detection value from the at least one sensor and that a grade of the filter is determined from the shape detection value.
Thus, the prior art of record does not disclose, teach or suggest the electronic mask of claim 1 or the method of controlling an electronic mask of claim 13, taken as a whole, wherein the grade of the filter is determined by detecting the shape of at least one filter by obtaining a shape detection value related to the shape of the at least one filter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VALERIE L WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1479. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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, KENDRA CARTER can be reached on 571-272-9034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VALERIE L WOODWARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights