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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 37, 39 and 42 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/19/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “the interface”. This should read “an interface”.
Claim 17 recites “the interface”. This should read “an interface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17 recites “a delimiter radially outwardly extending a body thereof”. It is unclear what this limitation means.
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.
Claim 2 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).
Claim 2 recites “allowing a human finger” which positively claims a human organism. The examiner recommends amending this to read “configured to allow a human finger”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (US 6,435,184 B1) in view of Heimbuch et al. (US 10,835,704 B1)
Regarding claim 1, Ho discloses: A respirator apparatus (figure 1) comprising:
a mask body (as shown below), the mask body comprising a front wall (as shown below) with at least one filter chamber (opening defined by 31) thereon for receiving therein at least one filter cartridge (4), each of the at least one filter chamber comprising a chamber sidewall extending outwardly from the front wall (as shown in figure 2); and
at least one disposable filter cap (32) demountably attachable to the chamber sidewall of a corresponding one of the at least one filter chamber for securing the at least one filter cartridge in the corresponding filter chamber (as shown in figures 2 and 3, via threads);
PNG
media_image1.png
574
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ho does not explicitly disclose wherein the mask body is a reusable and resterilizable, nor wherein any concave section of the mask body comprises a smoothly curved contour or comprises an obtuse angle measured between two tangential lines thereof.
However, Heimbuch teaches a mask body that is reusable and resterilizable (col. 18, lines 21-37), wherein any concave section of the mask body comprises a smoothly curved contour (col. 18, lines 21-37) or comprises an obtuse angle measured between two tangential lines thereof.
It would have been obvious to have modfied Ho such that wherein the mask body is a reusable and resterilizable, and wherein any concave section of the mask body comprises a smoothly curved contour or comprises an obtuse angle measured between two tangential lines thereof as taught by Heimbuch for the benefit of facilitating the use of a quick field reprocessing protocol and preventing bioburden accumulation. (Heimbuch: col. 18, lines 21-37)
Regarding claim 2, Ho as modified further discloses wherein any concave section of the mask body has a size allowing a human finger to position therein for using a wipe to clean and sterilize the concave section. (Heimbuch: col. 18, lines 21-37)
Regarding claim 3, Ho further discloses wherein the front wall (as set forth above) of the mask body comprises: a central portion comprising the at least one filter chamber (as shown in figures 1-2); and
a peripheral portion (front wall portion of 12) extending from the central portion (see figure 3 for example);
wherein the peripheral portion comprises a first flexible material (soft rubber as per col. 2, lines 49-50).
Ho does not explicitly state wherein the central portion comprises a rigid material.
However, Heimbuch further teaches it is known for a central portion of a mask to comprise a rigid material (col. 5, lines 42-57).
It would have been obvious to have modified Ho to include a rigid material for the central portion for the benefit of utilizing a material compatible with cleaning and disinfection wiping protocols. (Heimbuch: col. 5, lines 42-57)
Regarding claim 6, Ho further discloses wherein the mask body further comprises a rear wall extending rearwardly from the front wall (see annotated figure below), the rear wall comprising an opening (13) in communication with the at least one filter chamber (see figure 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
736
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Ho further discloses wherein the mask body further comprises a transition wall smoothly transitioning between the front and rear walls (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
736
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 12, 15-18 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (US 6,435,184 B1) in view of Heimbuch et al. (US 10,835,704 B1) in further view of Moulton et al. (WO 00/74758 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Ho as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above. Ho does not explicitly disclose wherein the chamber sidewall of each of the at least one filter chamber comprises a delimit protrusion on the outer surface thereof at the interface between the chamber sidewall and the front wall, each delimit protrusion having a frustum shape.
Moulton teaches it is known for a mask (8) (abstract) to include a chamber sidewall (32) and wherein the chamber sidewall of each of the at least one chamber (within 32) comprises a delimit protrusion (22’) on the outer surface thereof at the interface between the chamber sidewall and the front wall (at interface between 32 and 8 as shown in figure 2b), each delimit protrusion having a frustum shape (see figure 2b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Ho to include wherein the chamber sidewall of each of the at least one filter chamber comprises a delimit protrusion on the outer surface thereof at the interface between the chamber sidewall and the front wall, each delimit protrusion having a frustum shape as taught by Moulton for the benefit of attaching the strap via retainer 10 of Moulton. This would be an alternative way of attaching the strap of Ho and one of ordinary skill in the art would find the results of this simple substitution to be predictable. Each delimit protrusion carries the benefit of ensuring the retainer 10 of Moulton is attached properly to the mask in a particular angular orientation.
Regarding claim 15, Ho as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth for claim 1 above. While Ho discloses a strap, Ho does not explicitly disclose at least one reusable and resterilizable strap harness demountably attachable to the chamber sidewall of a corresponding one of the at least one filter chamber, the at least one strap harness comprising a plurality of fastening anchors.
However, Heimbuch teaches that it is known to include a reusable and resterilizable strap harness (col. 5, lines 42-57).
It would have been obvious to include at least one reusable and resterilizable strap harness as taught by Heimbuch for the benefit of reducing bioburden and making a surface easily wipeable (col. 5, lines 42-57).
Moulton teaches a strap harness (10) demountably attachable to a chamber sidewall (32) of a chamber (see where 22’ interfaces with 24 as shown in figure 2b), the at least one strap harness comprising a plurality of fastening anchors (18, 18’, 16, 16’).
It would have been obvious to have modified Ho such that the strap harness is demountably attachable to the chamber sidewall of a corresponding one of the at least one filter chamber, the at least one strap harness comprising a plurality of fastening anchors as taught by Moulton for the benefit of attaching the strap via retainer 10 of Moulton. This would be an alternative way of attaching the strap of Ho and one of ordinary skill in the art would find the results of this simple substitution to be predictable.
Regarding claim 16, Ho as modified further discloses wherein any concave section of the at least one strap harness comprises a smoothly curved contour (Heimbuch: col. 5, lines 42-57) or comprises an obtuse angle measured between two tangential lines thereof.
Regarding claim 17, Ho as modified further discloses wherein the chamber sidewall of each of the at least one filter chamber (figure 2b of Heimbuch shows chamber sidewall defined by 32) comprises a delimit protrusion (Heimbuch: 22’) on the outer surface thereof at the interface between the chamber sidewall and the front wall (see figure 2b of Heimbuch); and
wherein each of the at least one strap harness (10 of Heimbuch) comprises a delimiter (24 of Heimbuch) radially outwardly extending a body thereof (the indent 24 of Heimbuch extends rearwardly and radially and the body defining the indent also radially outwardly extends), the delimiter (24 of Heimbuch) comprising a rearwardly and radially inwardly facing recess (24 of Heimbuch) for coupling to the delimit protrusion of the corresponding chamber sidewall (see figure 2b of Heimbuch).
Regarding claim 18, Ho as modified further discloses wherein each delimiter has a shape substantially corresponding to that of the delimit protrusion of the corresponding chamber sidewall (see figure 2b of Heimbuch).
Regarding claim 25, Ho as modified further discloses one or more reusable and resterilizable (Heimbuch: col. 5, lines 42-57) mounting structures (portions of the strap as taught by Ho, Heimbuch which interface with Moulton’s 16, 16, 18, 18’) for demountably coupling to the plurality of fastening anchors (16, 16,’ 18, 18’ of Moulton), wherein any concave section of the one or more mounting structures comprises a smoothly curved contour (Heimbuch: col. 5, lines 42-57; col. 18, lines 21-37) or comprises an obtuse angle measured between two tangential lines thereof.
Claim(s)31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (US 6,435,184 B1) in view of Heimbuch et al. (US 10,835,704 B1) in further view of Olmsted et al. (US 2017/0312555 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Ho as modified does not explicitly disclose one or more communication components for communicating with a communication device.
However, Olmsted teaches it is known for a respirator (800) to include one or more communication components [0054]-[0055] for communicating with a communication device [0054]-[0055].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ho to include one or more communication components for communicating with a communication device as taught by Olmsted for the benefit of ensuring user safety by being able to communicate to the user about their environment.
Regarding claim 32, Ho as modified further discloses wherein the one or more communication components comprise at least one of one or more automatic-identification-and-data-capture (AIDC) sensors, one or more radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags [0054], and one or more near-field communication (NFC) circuitries [0055].
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (US 6,435,184 B1) in view of Heimbuch et al. (US 10,835,704 B1) in further view of Jumpertz (US 2003/0058100 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Ho as modified does not explicitly disclose at least one of: one or more temperature sensors; and one or more bio-sensors for detecting infectious agents from air of a user's breath.
However, Jumperz teaches it is known to provide a respirator (1) with at least one of: one or more temperature sensors ([0011] along with a visual display 3); and one or more bio-sensors for detecting infectious agents from air of a user's breath.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ho to include one or more temperature sensors such that the user can obtain information about their environment (claim 1).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (US 6,435,184 B1) in view of Heimbuch et al. (US 10,835,704 B1) in further view of Henderson et al. (US 2005/0211251 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Ho as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the rigid material comprises polypropylene; and/or wherein the first flexible material comprises soft thermoplastic elastomers (TPE).
Henderson teaches it is known for a respiratory mask to include a rigid material of polypropylene (forming the mask body [0047]) and wherein the first flexible material (face seal) comprises soft thermoplastic elastomers [0047].
It would have been obvious to have modified Ho such that the rigid material comprises polypropylene; and/or wherein the first flexible material comprises soft thermoplastic elastomers (TPE) as taught by Henderson since the courts have held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19, 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:00pm.
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 at (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 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.
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights