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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: "resisitive" should be spelled "resistive";
Claim 9: "duty Cycle" should be "duty cycle" (lowercase "c" for consistency in technical terms unless it's a proper noun or title case is intended); and
Claim 10: "mask" appears instead of "face covering" (this is an inconsistency in terminology rather than a pure misspelling, as the invention is consistently referred to as a "face covering" elsewhere; it should be revised to "face covering" for uniformity);
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 1 [and dependent claims 2-9], dependent claim 6, and claim 10 [and dependent claims 11 and 12] 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fabric" in line 5 within the phrase “disposed on the fabric”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim introduces "a fabric layer," but "the fabric" appears to refer to the material of the layer without explicit introduction. The examiner suggests changing to "the fabric layer" for clarity.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the fabric" in line 21 within the phrase “wherein the fabric is”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the mask" in line 2 within the phrase “an outside surface of the mask”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The invention is introduced as "a face covering" in Claim 1 and referenced consistently elsewhere; there is no prior mention of "a mask." This is a clear antecedent basis issue. Suggest changing to "the face covering" for consistency and proper reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiserman et al. (US 2008/0083721A1; hereinafter “Kaiserman”) in view of Conway (US 2018/0141741A1).
In relation to claim 1, claim 1 recites:
A face covering, comprising: a fabric layer having a resistive heating element disposed on
the fabric; and an infrared reflective layer arranged between the fabric layer and an inner
surface of the face covering configured to reduce heat transfer to the inner surface.
Kaiserman discloses a composite heating element suitable for heating an article, specifically textiles and garments that are worn by users. The abstract of Kaiserman states:
"The present invention provides a composite heating element suitable for heating an article when activated by a power source. The composite heating element comprises first and second dielectric layers each having an inner surface and an outer surface. The composite heating element further comprises a conductive layer formed from at least one conductive ink composition comprising a plastisol component and a conductive component."
Kaiserman teaches at paragraph [0003] that "[a]rticles having heating elements to heat a
wearer of the article, such as heated jackets and vests, are well known in the art." This establishes that Kaiserman's heating elements are intended for wearable textile articles. Kaiserman teaches at paragraph [0007] that "[s]ome articles use a conductive layer formed from a conventional conductive ink composition as a heating element." This discloses a resistive heating element. Kaiserman teaches at paragraph [0008] that "the conductive ink composition may be applied, i.e., printed, directly to the article to form a heating element." This discloses a heating element disposed on a fabric. Accordingly, Kaiserman teaches a fabric layer (textile article) having a resistive heating element (conductive layer) disposed on the fabric.
Missing Elements:
Kaiserman does not explicitly disclose an infrared reflective layer arranged between the
fabric layer and an inner surface of the face covering configured to reduce heat transfer to the inner surface.
Secondary Reference - Conway:
Conway discloses a protective sleeve with multiple layers. The abstract states: "[p]rotective
sleeves for portable electronic devices are provided... provided is a protective sleeve comprising: an outer layer of material with a reflective surface; and an inner layer of material with a protective surface; wherein the outer layer of material and the inner layer of material are layered together." Conway teaches at claim 18 that "[t]he second layer of material comprises an infrared (IR) reflective material with an emissivity of 0.05 to 0.60." Conway teaches at claim 17 that "[t]he second layer of material comprises metalized polyester film laminated to nylon." Conway teaches at the abstract that the reflective layer is "layered together" with other layers and is positioned to reduce heat transfer. Therefore, Conway teaches an infrared reflective layer arranged between layers to reduce heat transfer.
Motivation to Combine:
Based on the above teachings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate Conway's infrared reflective layer into the heated textile of Kaiserman. The purpose of Kaiserman's heating element is to provide warmth to the wearer. However, in applications where the heating element is intended to heat a specific surface (such as the outer surface of a face covering), it would be desirable to prevent heat from transferring to the inner surface that contacts the user's skin, for comfort and safety reasons. A person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to improve the thermal efficiency of a heated garment and to protect the wearer from excessive heat, would have been motivated to incorporate a heat-reflective layer as taught by Conway. Conway explicitly teaches that such reflective layers reduce heat transfer, which is precisely the function needed. The combination would result in a heated textile article with improved thermal management, directing heat away from the user while maintaining heating efficiency on the outer surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Kaiserman and Conway to arrive at a fabric layer having a resistive heating element disposed on the fabric, with an infrared reflective layer arranged between the fabric layer and an inner surface to reduce heat transfer to the inner surface.
In relation to claim 2, claim 2 recites:
The face covering of claim 1, wherein the heating element is an inkjet printed or screen
printed heating element.
Kaiserman explicitly discloses that the heating element is a printed heating element. Kaiserman teaches at paragraph [0007] that "[s]ome articles use a conductive layer formed from a conventional conductive ink composition as a heating element." Kaiserman further teaches at paragraph [0008] that "the conductive ink composition may be applied [i.e., printed, directly to the article to form a heating element] to a backing layer to form a conductive ink layer thereon. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,194,692 to Oberle (the '692 patent) discloses a composite heating element having a conductive ink layer disposed on an insulating layer. The conductive layer may be formed by applying a conductive ink composition onto the insulating layer, such as by screenprinting." Accordingly, the implementation of this enhancement in the invention would have been considered an obvious alternative in the design of the face covering.
In relation to claim 3, claim 3 recites:
The face covering of claim 2, wherein the heating element provides a sheet resistance of
1-20 Ohms.
As established for claim 2, Kaiserman teaches a screen-printed heating element using conductive ink. Kaiserman discusses at paragraph [0007] that "[c]onductive ink compositions can vary in cost, depending heavily on what kind of conductive particles are used therein to impart conductivity to the conductive layer." While Kaiserman does not explicitly disclose a specific sheet resistance value of 1-20 Ohms, this range is a standard and well-known parameter for printed heating elements designed to operate with low-voltage power sources (such as batteries), which are common in portable heated garments. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the sheet resistance of a printed heating element can be controlled by selecting appropriate conductive inks and controlling the thickness and pattern of the printed layer. The selection of a sheet resistance of 1-20 Ohms would have been an obvious design choice to achieve effective heating with commonly available battery voltages (3V-12V) while maintaining reasonable power consumption. This is a matter of routine optimization based on well-known principles of electrical resistance and power dissipation (P = V²/R). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design Kaiserman's printed heating element to have a sheet resistance of 1-20 Ohms.
In relation to claim 4, claim 4 recites:
The face covering of claim 2, wherein the heating element comprises screen printed silver
ink.
Kaiserman explicitly discloses the use of silver ink for the conductive heating element. Kaiserman teaches at paragraph [0007]: "[f]or example, conductive ink compositions employing precious metals, e.g. silver, which have excellent conductive and therefore excellent heating properties, are much more expensive than other less effective conductive particles, e.g. graphite." This passage explicitly teaches that silver-based conductive inks can be used for heating elements and that they have excellent conductive and heating properties. Combined with the teaching at paragraph [0008] that the conductive ink can be applied by screen-printing, Kaiserman demonstrates the conventionality of a screen-printed silver ink heating element. Therefore, the implementation of this enhancement in the invention would have been considered an obvious alternative in the design of the face covering.
In relation to claim 7, claim 7 recites:
The face covering of claim 1, wherein the infrared reflective layer comprises perforated
biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate.
As established for claim 1, the combination of Kaiserman and Conway teaches a fabric layer with a heating element and an infrared reflective layer. Conway teaches at claim 17 that "The second layer of material comprises metalized polyester film laminated to nylon." Biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate (BOPET) is a common and well-known form of polyester film. The term "metalized" indicates that the film has a reflective metallic coating, which provides the infrared reflective properties.
Conway does not explicitly teach that the reflective layer is perforated. However, when adapting Conway's reflective layer for use in a face covering (as opposed to an electronic device sleeve), a person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that breathability is essential. A solid, non-perforated film would completely block airflow, making the face covering unusable for its primary function of allowing the wearer to breathe. Perforating films to maintain breathability while retaining other functional properties is a well-known and obvious technique in the art of face coverings and breathable textiles. The perforations would allow air to pass through while the reflective material between the perforations would still provide the heat-reflective function. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use perforated biaxially oriented polyethylene terephthalate (BOPET) as the infrared reflective layer in the combination of Kaiserman and Conway when adapted for use in a face covering.
Claims 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiserman et al. (US 2008/0083721A1; hereinafter “Kaiserman”) in view of Conway (US 2018/0141741A1), as discussed above, and in further view of Kopes (US 9,795,502).
In relation to claim 6, claim 6 recites:
The face covering of claim 1, wherein the fabric is substantially formed from cotton.
Kaiserman does not explicitly disclose the use of cotton. However, Kopes discloses in column 4, lines 3-5, that “the heated mask main body 40 is made of fleece and cotton.”. Therefore, since the use of cotton in masks would have been considered conventional in the art at the time of filing, for an artisan skilled in the art, the use of cotton in the manufacturing process of Kaiserman would have been considered an obvious alternative in the design of the face covering.
In relation to claim 8, claim 8 recites:
The face covering of claim 1, further comprising a controller configured to regulate a
current through the heating element.
As established for claim 1, the combination of Kaiserman and Conway teaches a fabric layer
with a heating element and an infrared reflective layer. However, these references do not explicitly disclose a controller configured to regulate current through the heating element. Kopes discloses a heated mask with temperature control. The abstract of Kopes states: "[a] heated mask comprises a user-operated control providing a number of different parameters including temperature and duration of heat application." Kopes teaches that "[a] control module regulates a selectable voltage supplied to a heating element. Each selectable voltage produces a corresponding temperature in the heated mask" [see column 3, lines 18-21]. Regulating voltage inherently involves regulating current through the heating element, as current is a function of voltage and resistance (I = V/R). Based on the above comments, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a controller as taught by Kopes into the heated face covering of Kaiserman and Conway. The purpose of a heating element in a wearable device is to provide controlled heating, which requires regulation of the electrical power supplied to the heating element. Without a controller, the heating element would operate at a fixed, uncontrolled temperature, which could be unsafe, uncomfortable, or ineffective. Kopes demonstrates that controllers for regulating heating elements in face masks were well-known in the art. A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to include such a controller to ensure safe and effective operation of the heated face covering, allowing the user to select and maintain a desired temperature. Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate a controller configured to regulate current through the heating element in the combination of Kaiserman, Conway, and Kopes.
In relation to claim 9, claim 9 recites:
The face covering of claim 8, wherein the controller uses pulse width modulation at a
peak voltage between 3V and 11V to control temperature by modifying pulse frequency
and/or duty cycle.
As established for claim 8, the combination of Kaiserman, Conway, and Kopes teaches a
heated face covering with a controller. Kopes explicitly discloses the use of pulse width modulation (PWM) for temperature control. Kopes discloses in column 3, lines 12-16: "[p]ulse width modulation may be used to control voltage level applied to heating elements. Control of the voltage level provides accuracy and precision in heated mask temperature in response to temperature selection and minimizes hysteresis." PWM inherently operates by modifying pulse frequency and/or duty cycle—this is the fundamental principle of pulse width modulation. Therefore, Kopes teaches controlling temperature by modifying pulse frequency and/or duty cycle. Kopes mentions a 12V power supply [see column 3, lines 8-9]. The claimed peak voltage range of 3V to 11V is a standard, conventional range for portable, battery-operated electronic devices. Common battery configurations include single-cell lithium-ion batteries (3.7V nominal), dual-cell configurations (7.4V), and triple-cell configurations (11.1V). These voltage ranges are well-known in the art of portable electronic devices. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to operate the PWM controller within this conventional voltage range to ensure compatibility with standard battery technologies and to ensure user safety. The selection of a voltage within this range would be a routine design choice based on available battery technologies and desired heating power. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use pulse width modulation at a peak voltage between 3V and 11V to control temperature by modifying pulse frequency and/or duty cycle in the combination of Kaiserman, Conway, and Kopes.
Claims 5, 10, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiserman et al. (US 2008/0083721A1; hereinafter “Kaiserman”) in view of Conway (US 2018/0141741A1), as discussed above, and in further view of Schmid-Dreyer (DE 202020104424U1).
In relation to claim 5, claim 5 recites:
The face covering of claim 1, wherein the heating element is configured to provide a
temperature of 60-105°C to an outer surface of the face covering.
As established for claim 1, Kaiserman teaches a fabric layer with a resistive heating element
disposed on the fabric. Kaiserman discusses temperature control of heating elements, but does not specify the particular temperature range of 60-105°C. Schmid-Dreyer discloses on page 8 of the translation, a device for disinfecting face masks using heat to inactivate viruses. Schmid-Dreyer teaches on page 8 of the translation that "the heating device is set up to wholly or partially, in particular an area of application within the device, to a temperature of greater than 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, 105, 110 or 120 degrees Celsius and / or to a temperature of less than 120, 110, 105, 100, 95, 90, 85, 80 or 75 degrees Celsius." This teaching establishes that temperatures in the range of 70-105°C are effective for viral inactivation on face masks.
Based on the above teachings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to configure the heating element of Kaiserman to operate at temperatures known to inactivate viruses. Schmid-Dreyer provides explicit teaching that temperatures of 70-105°C are effective for this
purpose on face masks. Therefore, a person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to create a heated face covering capable of self-decontamination. The temperature range of 60-105°C claimed is fully encompassed by the range taught in Schmid-Dreyer (70-120°C).
In relation to claim 10, claim 10 recites:
A method of cleaning a face covering, comprising: providing the face covering of claim 1;
and using the heating element to heat an outside surface of the mask to a temperature of
60-105°C for a time sufficient to inactivate viral particles.
As established for claims 1 and 5, the combination of Kaiserman, Conway, and Schmid-
Dreyer teaches a face covering with a heating element configured to provide a temperature of 60-105°C. Schmid-Dreyer explicitly teaches using heat to inactivate viral particles on face masks [see page 8 of the translation]. Schmid-Dreyer further teaches on page 8 of the translation the temperature range and duration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to use the heated face covering of Kaiserman and Conway for the purpose of viral inactivation as taught by Schmid-Dreyer. Schmid-Dreyer explicitly teaches that heating face masks to temperatures in the range of 70-105°C for specific durations is effective for inactivating viruses. A person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to create a method of cleaning a face covering by heating it to inactivate viral particles, as this addresses a well-known need for face mask decontamination.
In relation to claim 11, claim 11 recites:
The method of claim 10, wherein the method is performed while the face covering is
being worn by a user.
As established for claim 10, the combination of Kaiserman, Conway, and Schmid-Dreyer
teaches a method of heating a face covering to inactivate viral particles. Kopes discloses a heated mask that is worn by a user. The abstract states: "[a] heated mask comprises a user-operated control providing a number of different parameters including temperature and duration of heat application." The description makes clear that the mask is worn on the face while being heated. Additionally, Kaiserman teaches heated garments (jackets, vests) that are worn by users while the heating elements are active. This establishes that heating elements in wearable textiles can be operated while the garment is being worn. Based on the above teachings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the viral inactivation method while the face covering is being worn. The combination of Kaiserman (heated wearable textiles), Kopes (heated masks worn by users), and Schmid-Dreyer (viral inactivation by heating) would have motivated a skilled artisan to create a face covering that can be heated for viral inactivation while being worn. This combination would provide the advantage of continuous decontamination during use, which would be particularly valuable in high-exposure environments. The temperature range taught by Schmid-Dreyer (70-105°C) can be controlled to levels that, while warm, can be tolerated on the outer surface of a face covering for short periods, especially with the heat-reflective layer taught by Conway to protect the wearer's skin. Therefore, it would have been obvious to perform the method of heating the face covering for viral inactivation while the face covering is being worn by a user.
In relation to claim 12, claim 12 recites:
The method of claim 10, wherein the time sufficient to inactivate viral particles is 1-15 minutes.
As established for claim 10, the combination of Kaiserman, Conway, and Schmid-Dreyer teaches a method of heating a face covering to inactivate viral particles. Schmid-Dreyer explicitly teaches heating durations for viral inactivation. Schmid-Dreyer states on page 8 of the translation: "the heating device is set up... for a period of time greater than 5, 10, 20, 60 or 90 min." This teaching explicitly includes heating times of 5, 10, and 20 minutes, all of which fall within the claimed range of 1-15 minutes. While Schmid-Dreyer also mentions longer times (60 and 90 minutes), the explicit teaching of 5, 10, and 20 minutes demonstrates that shorter heating durations are effective for viral inactivation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the specific time required for viral inactivation depends on the temperature used—higher temperatures require shorter times. Given that Schmid-Dreyer teaches both the temperature range (70-105°C) and heating durations that include times within the claimed range, it would have been obvious to select a heating time of 1-15 minutes when operating at the higher end of the temperature range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to heat the face covering for a time of 1-15 minutes to inactivate viral particles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A MENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4962. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00 AM-5:00 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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
Respectfully submitted,
/MANUEL A MENDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783