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 a preliminary amendment filed on 3/28/2023. As directed by the amendment, claims 19-22 and 24-25 were amended, no claims were cancelled nor added. Thus, claims 1-25 are presently pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 1-3, 5, 6A-6E, 7-8, 10B, and 11 are black and white photographs. The photographs include light and dark spots making the details of the invention difficult to ascertain. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. Drawing should be used when the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing. See PCT Article 7 (1), “Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2)(ii), drawings shall be required when they are necessary for the understanding of invention.”
Furthermore, the drawings are objected to because figs. 13-17 contain shadings. It is not clear as to why the shadings are required for the figures. The shadings should be removed in order to provide clarity.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, line 1, the term “the heat-exchanger heat sink” is suggested to be changed to --the heat sink of the heat-exchanger-- in order to clarify the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the limitation “a thermoregulation unit mountable to the frame for accessing the cavity, the thermoregulation unit being configured to: draw the respirable air from the cavity into the thermoregulation unit: transfer heat from the drawn respirable air to an ambient atmosphere outside the frame so as to cool down the drawn respirable air and thereby condense at least part of water vapor from the drawn respirable air to form condensed water vapor: remove the condensed water vapor from the drawn respirable air: and release the drawn respirable air to the cavity after the drawn respirable air is cooled and the condensed water vapor is removed such that the respirable air released back to the cavity is cooler and drier than the respirable air originally drawn” (claim 1, lines 5-16, the term “unit” is a generic placeholder and the function is “configured to: draw the respirable air from the cavity into the thermoregulation unit: transfer heat from the drawn respirable air to an ambient atmosphere outside the frame so as to cool down the drawn respirable air and thereby condense at least part of water vapor from the drawn respirable air to form condensed water vapor: remove the condensed water vapor from the drawn respirable air: and release the drawn respirable air to the cavity after the drawn respirable air is cooled and the condensed water vapor is removed such that the respirable air released back to the cavity is cooler and drier than the respirable air originally drawn”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“thermoregulation unit”: thermoregulation unit 110, “Exemplarily, the thermoregulation unit 110 comprises a mounting plate 415, a TE module 410, a heat exchanger 425 and a cold-side fan 421” (paragraph 0068 of page 8 of the specification).
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 2-18, 21, and 23 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “while avoiding the respirable air in the cavity to from fluid communication with the ambient atmosphere” (lines 3-4) is unclear and confusing as to what the limitation is trying to claim, specifically, the phrase “to from”.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “fast draining…fast removal” (lines 2 and 4) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, what is considered as “fast” draining and “fast” removal. The term “fast” is too relative.
Regarding claim 23, the limitation “an individual bag of desiccant” (line 1) is unclear if the individual bag of desiccant is referring to the “one or more bags of desiccant” or not.
Any remaining claims are rejected for their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisniewski (2022/0219026) in view of Garafolo (2017/0259088).
Regarding claim 1, Wisniewski discloses a facemask (entire face mask in fig. 1) for filtering atmospheric air to provide respirable air to a user (see paragraphs 0010-0013), the facemask comprising: a frame (1, fig. 1, paragraphs 0013-0014, Wisniewski discloses that the body 1 comprises a gasket for interfacing with the user’s face and the drawing shows wearable loops) detachably attachable to a face of the user, the frame comprising an interior cavity for storing the respirable air providable to the user (see the cavity formed by body 1 where 5/8/11/12/15 are positioned within, see fig. 3): and a thermoregulation unit (2 comprising 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 13, figs. 2-3, paragraph 0013) mountable to the frame for accessing the cavity, the thermoregulation unit being configured to: allow the drawing of the respirable air from the cavity into the thermoregulation unit: transfer heat from the drawn respirable air to an ambient atmosphere outside the frame so as to cool down the drawn respirable air and thereby condense at least part of water vapor from the drawn respirable air to form condensed water vapor: remove the condensed water vapor from the drawn respirable air: and release the drawn respirable air to the cavity after the drawn respirable air is cooled and the condensed water vapor is removed such that the respirable air released back to the cavity is cooler and drier than the respirable air originally drawn (see paragraphs 0008-0014, Wisniewski discloses that on the inner side of the thermoelectric generator 2, there is a moisture condensing system 7 equipped with groove 8 inclined downwards toward half the width of the thermoelectric generator, the condensing system is configured to cool the respirable air and condense the moisture from the air by providing a cooling system that condenses moisture below the dew point and collects it into a container, furthermore, because the moisture condensing system 7 comprises grooves 8, the air would enter and exit the groves), but fails to disclose that the thermoregulation unit is configured to draw the respirable air from the cavity into the thermoregulation unit.
However, Garafolo teaches a thermoregulation unit (334, 337, 335, 37, 315, 312 and 313, fig. 4, paragraphs 0074-0078) comprising a fan (315, fig. 4) for drawing the respirable air from a cavity into the thermoregulation unit (see fig. 4, paragraphs 0074-0078, Garafolo discloses heat transfer fins, and fan 315 for moving air across the cold side cooling elements residing on the respiration zone 314, therefore, the fan 315 would draw air through the fins and then release the drawn air back into the cavity).
Therefore, 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 thermoregulation unit of Wisniewski to have the fan as taught by Garafolo for the purpose of providing a means for moving the air across the cold side of the thermoregulation unit to effectively allow air to be cooled and provided to the user, thereby, providing comfort and safety to the wearer (see paragraphs 0004-0006, 0043, 0074-0076 of Garafolo).
Claims 2-3, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisniewski (2022/0219026) in view of Garafolo (2017/0259088) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsukashima (2004/0210151).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Wisniewski discloses a TE module and the TE module being formed as a Peltier heat pump for thermoelectrically transporting heat from a cold side to a hot side (TE module portion of 2, paragraphs 0008-0014 of Wisniewski), but fails to disclose that the thermoregulation unit comprises: a mounting plate sealingly receivable by the frame for mounting the thermoregulation unit to the frame while avoiding the respirable air in the cavity to form fluid communication with the ambient atmosphere, the mounting plate defining a cold side and a hot side of the thermoregulation unit such that the cold side is located in the cavity and the hot side is located outside the cavity when the thermoregulation unit is mounted to the frame, a thermoelectric (TE module) installed in the mounting plate and arranged to access both the cold and hot sides.
However, Tsukashima teaches a frame (36, figs. 1-2, paragraphs 0022-0024), a thermoregulation unit (41, 34, 37, 50, 54, 52, 56, 43, figs. 1-4, paragraphs 0023-0035) comprises: a mounting plate (43, fig. 4, see paragraph 0029) sealingly receivable by the frame for mounting the thermoregulation unit to the frame (36) while avoiding the respirable air in the cavity to form fluid communication with the ambient atmosphere (see fig. 4 and paragraphs 0023-0035), the mounting plate defining a cold side (cold side is the side formed by 41, see figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 0028-0029) and a hot side (hot side is the side formed by 34, figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 0023, 0025, 0028-0031) of the thermoregulation unit such that the cold side is located in a cavity (see figs. 3 and 4, the cold side of 41 is formed in a cavity of frame 36) and the hot side is located outside the cavity when the thermoregulation unit is mounted to the frame, a thermoelectric (TE module)(54, 56 and 50, fig. 5, paragraphs 0029-0031) installed in the mounting plate and arranged to access both the cold and hot sides (see figs. 3 and 4), the TE module being formed as a Peltier heat pump for thermoelectrically transporting heat from the cold side to the hot side (see paragraphs 0029-0031).
Therefore, 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 frame and thermoregulation unit of the modified Wisniewski to have the mounting plate for mounting the thermoregulation unit as taught by Tsukashima for the purpose of providing an alternative means of mounting the thermoregulation unit to the mask that would provide the predictable result of allowing moisture to be condensed via the thermoregulation unit (see paragraphs 0029-0031 of Tsukashima).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Wisniewski discloses that the thermoregulation unit further comprises a heat exchanger (heat exchanger is the portion of 7 that comprises fins/whiskers 15 forming grooves 8 of Wisniewski, see figs. 1 and 2 and paragraphs 0013-0014 of Wisniewski) installed on the cold side and contacted with the TE module for transferring heat received from the drawn respirable air to the TE module, the heat exchanger having one or more outlets for releasing the drawn respirable air back to the cavity (see figs. 1 and 3 and paragraphs 0013-0014 of Wisniewski, due to the shape of the protrusions/whiskers 15 forming the grooves, there would be inlets and outlets, depending on how the air is drawn by the fan of 315 of Garafolo after the modification with Garafolo); and a cold-side fan (315 of Garafolo) installed on the cold side and coupled to the heat exchanger for drawing the respirable air from the cavity to the heat exchanger (see paragraphs 0074-0078 of Garafolo, anyone direction of the fan 315 would draw the respirable air from the cavity to the heat exchanger after the modification with Wisniewski due to the design of the fins producing the grooves 8 of Wisniewski, see figs. 1 and 3 of Wisniewski).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Wisniewski discloses that the heat exchanger comprises a first wind guide and a second wind guide serially cascaded together, the first wind guide being arranged to receive the drawn respirable air from the cold-side fan and the second wind guide providing the one or more outlets for releasing the respirable air back to the cavity (see the whiskers/protrusions/fins 15 that form the grooves 8 in fig. 3, paragraphs 0013-0014 of Wisniewski, depending on the air moving through the whiskers, there, would be a first wind guide and second wind guide (whiskers 15) that serially cascaded together, and there would be a portion of one of the whisker that would be a first wind guide being arranged to receive the drawn respirable air from the cold-side fan and a portion of another whisker that is a second wind guide that would provide the one or more outlets for releasing respirable air back to the cavity).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Wisniewski discloses that the first and second wind guides are mutually substantially-perpendicular in orientation (see fig. 3, the whiskers are three dimensional, therefore, relatively, each whisker is arranged mutually substantially-perpendicular in orientation).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Wisniewski discloses that the thermoregulation unit further comprises: a hot-side heat sink (10 and 13, see figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0013-0014 of Wisniewski) installed on the hot side and contacted with the TE module for receiving heat from the TE module and dissipating the received heat to the ambient atmosphere (see paragraphs 0013-0014 of Wisniewski, Wisniewski discloses radiator 10 which would be a hot-side since Wisniewski discloses a thermoelectric device for condensing moisture on the cool side comprising grooves 8 and whiskers 15, furthermore, Wisniewski discloses that “the radiator 10 is attached to the outer surface of the thermoelectric generator 2”, which would be in contact with the thermoelectric module 2).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisniewski (2022/0219026) in view of Garafolo (2017/0259088) and Tsukashima (2004/0210151) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Apisdorf (5,193,347).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Wisniewski fails to disclose that the cold-side fan is user-controllable in rotational speed such that an air flow generated by the cold-side fan is user-controllable.
However, Apisdorf teaches a cold-side fan (50, see fig. 3 and col 5, lines 22-53) is user-controllable in rotational speed such that an air flow generated by the cold-side fan is user-controllable (see col 12, lines 57-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify fan of the modified Wisniewski to be user-controllable as taught by Apisdorf for the purpose of providing flexibility/adjustability and comfort to the user (see col 12, lines 57-62 of Apisdorf).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisniewski (2022/0219026) in view of Garafolo (2017/0259088) and Tsukashima (2004/0210151) as applied to claim 3 above, and alternatively in view of Zheng (CN 2690955).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Wisniewski discloses that the cold-side fan is a side blow fan (315 of Garafolo, relatively, the fan 315 of Garafolo is a side blow fan, see fig. 4, it is noted that the specification fails to define the specific structures and geometries of the side blow fan in order to prevent the interpretation of the fan 315 of Garafolo being a side blow fan, furthermore, the term “side blow fan” is a not an art recognized term that provides the fan with a specific structure that would prevent the interpretation of the fan 315 of Garafolo being a side blow fan).
However, if there is any doubt that the fan of the modified Wisniewski can be considered as a side blow fan. Zheng teaches a fan (3, figs. 2-4) that is a side blow fan (paragraphs 0034-0035 of the English translation, Zheng discloses a cross flow fan having an inlet of 31 and outlet of 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify fan of the modified Wisniewski to be a side blow fan as taught by Zheng for the purpose of providing an alternative fan design that would provide the predictable result of moving air across the heat exchanger on the cold side of the modified Wisniewski (see paragraphs 0034-0035 of Zheng).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisniewski (2022/0219026) in view of Garafolo (2017/0259088) and Tsukashima (2004/0210151) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Tsukashima (2004/0210151).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Wisniewski fails to disclose that the heat exchanger formed by impermeable copper sheet.
However, Tsukashima teaches a heat exchanger that can be made of an impermeable copper sheet (see sheet 34 and 35, figs. 1-4 and paragraph 0023).
Therefore, 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 heat exchanger of the modified Wisniewski to be made of an impermeable copper sheet as taught by Tsukashima for the purpose of providing a material that is good at conducting heat (see paragraph 0023 of Tsukashima).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisniewski (2022/0219026) in view of Garafolo (2017/0259088) and Tsukashima (2004/0210151) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Taylor (6,125,636).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Wisniewski fails to disclose a hot-side fan installed on the hot side for forcibly dissipating the heat received by the hot-side heat sink.
However, Taylor teaches a hot-side fan (130, fig. 3) installed on the hot side for forcibly dissipating the heat received by the hot-side heat sink (120, fig. 3, col 5, lines 11-58).
Therefore, 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 hot-side heat sink of the modified Wisniewski to have the fan as taught by Taylor for the purpose of enhancing the heat transfer from the heat sink to the ambient air (see col 5, lines 36-50 of Taylor).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisniewski (2022/0219026) in view of Garafolo (2017/0259088) and Tsukashima (2004/0210151) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tsukashima (2004/0210151).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Wisniewski discloses that the hot-side heat sink is a fin heat sink (see fins 13 of 10 in figs. 1-2 and paragraph 0013 of Wisniewski), but fails to disclose that the hot-side heat sink is an aluminum-fin heat sink.
However, Tsukashima teaches a hot-side heat sink is an aluminum-fin heat sink (see sheet 34 and 35, figs. 1-4 and paragraph 0023).
Therefore, 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 hot-side heat sink of the modified Wisniewski to be made of aluminum as taught by Tsukashima for the purpose of providing a material that is good at conducting heat (see paragraph 0023 of Tsukashima).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisniewski (2022/0219026) in view of Garafolo (2017/0259088) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reekers (2021/0244110).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Wisniewski fails to disclose that the thermoregulation unit is detachably mountable to the frame.
However, Reekers teaches a fan unit that is detachably mountable to the frame (see paragraph 0028, Reekers discloses that the fan assembly is detachable from the mask body).
Therefore, 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 thermoregulation unit of the modified Wisniewski to be detachably mountable to the frame of the modified Wisniewski as taught by Reekers for the purpose of providing a detachable interface that allow for easy repair, replacement and cleaning of parts (see paragraph 0028 of Reekers).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisniewski (2022/0219026) in view of Garafolo (2017/0259088) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jayaraman (2015/0352382).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Wisniewski fails to disclose that the frame further comprises: an opening for receiving a surgical mask, the surgical mask being used for filtering the atmospheric air when the atmospheric air enters into the cavity through the surgical mask to augment with the respirable air already present in the cavity; and a sealing lock configured to sealingly fit to a circumference of the opening for securing the surgical mask on the circumference while sealing the opening.
However, Jayaraman teaches a frame (100 comprising 110 and 120, figs. 1-2, paragraph 0045) that is formed by 3D printing which allows the frame to adapt to a specific wearer’s facial structure (see paragraphs 0043-0045), the frame further comprises an opening (opening is where the filter media is positioned within) for receiving a surgical mask (the filter media is a surgical mask because the filter is covering the wearer’s face and is a mask), the surgical mask being used for filtering the atmospheric air when the atmospheric air enters into the cavity through the surgical mask to augment with the respirable air already present in the cavity; and a sealing lock (the sealing lock is the edge of the filter media that is being locked with the upper and lower frame portions (110 and 120), see paragraph 0045, alternatively, the sealing lock is the portion that forms the inner circumference of 110 and 120 that locks the filter media in place) configured to sealingly fit to a circumference of the opening for securing the surgical mask on the circumference while sealing the opening (see paragraphs 0012 and 0015, Jayaraman discloses that the form-fitting facial frame can be configured to removably secure a removable filter media, furthermore, see paragraphs 0043-0045, Jayaraman discloses that the upper frame portion and lower frame portion are both manufactured using 3D printing, the user face can be scanned to create the profile and structure of the face mask frame, see fig. 1 for frame 100 comprising upper frame portion 110 and lower frame portion 120).
Therefore, 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 frame of the modified Wisniewski to have the frame that is formed by 3D printing as taught by Jayaraman for the purpose of providing a support frame that can be customized to the wearer’s face, thereby providing a better fit (see paragraph 0043 of Jayaraman).
After the modification, the filter media formed by 1 of Wisniewski would be the filter media that is placed within the frame of Jayaraman, the filter media is the surgical mask in that the filter medial cover’s the wearer face and can be used in a surgical environment.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisniewski (2022/0219026) in view of Garafolo (2017/0259088) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hill (2,845,926).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Wisniewski fails to disclose that the frame further comprises: an opening for receiving a surgical mask, the surgical mask being used for filtering the atmospheric air when the atmospheric air enters into the cavity through the surgical mask to augment with the respirable air already present in the cavity; and a sealing lock configured to sealingly fit to a circumference of the opening for securing the surgical mask on the circumference while sealing the opening.
However, Hill teaches a frame (A, fig. 1), the frame further comprises an opening (opening formed 5, fig. 1, col 3, lines 44-70) for receiving a surgical mask (D, col 3, lines 44-74), the surgical mask being used for filtering the atmospheric air when the atmospheric air enters into the cavity through the surgical mask to augment with the respirable air already present in the cavity; and a sealing lock (B, fig. 1) configured to sealingly fit to a circumference of the opening for securing the surgical mask on the circumference while sealing the opening (see col 3, line 20 to col 4, line 72).
Therefore, 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 frame of the modified Wisniewski to have the frame and sealing lock as taught by Hill for the purpose of providing a support frame that can be removed and cleaned (see col 2, lines 34-43 of Hill).
After the modification, the filter media formed by 1 of Wisniewski would be the filter media that is placed within the frame and the sealing lock of Hill, the filter media is the surgical mask in that the filter medial cover’s the wearer face and can be used in a surgical environment.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisniewski (2022/0219026) in view of Garafolo (2017/0259088) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ansari (2022/0040506).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Wisniewski fails to disclose one or more bags of desiccant for reducing a relative humidity of the respirable air in the cavity.
However, Ansari teaches a bag of desiccant for reducing a relative humidity of the respirable air in a cavity of a mask (see paragraphs 0037-0038, Ansari discloses that a small fan 345 is coupled to the mask frame 200 and configured to pull air through the non-woven layers of the mask cover 150 into the interior volume 243 of the mask frame 200, a holder 348 defined by a housing having a plurality of holes 342 is positioned proximate to the fan 345 and the holder is configured to receive into the housing volume an enclosed bag of material that acts as a moisture absorber or desiccant, which includes CaCl).
Therefore, 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 frame of the modified Wisniewski to have the bag of desiccant as taught by Ansari for the purpose of providing comfort to the wearer by reducing the moisture entering the cavity (see paragraphs 0037-0038 of Ansari).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisniewski (2022/0219026) in view of Garafolo (2017/0259088) and Ansari (2022/0040506) as applied to claim 22 above, and alternatively in view of Chen (2022/0008760).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Wisniewski discloses that the individual bag of desiccant is deposited with calcium chloride as a desiccant material (see paragraph 0038 of Ansari, Ansari discloses that the desiccant material is CaCl which has calcium and chloride).
However, if there is any doubt that Ansari discloses calcium chloride.
Chen teaches a desiccant material comprising calcium chloride (see paragraph 0058).
Therefore, 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 desiccant of the modified Wisniewski to have calcium chloride as taught by Chen for the purpose of providing an alternative desiccant material that would provide the predictable result of absorbing moisture (see paragraph 0058 of Chen).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisniewski (2022/0219026) in view of Garafolo (2017/0259088) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Garafolo (2017/0259088).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Wisniewski fails to disclose that the TE module is user-controllable in setting a direction of heat flow actualized by the TE module in transporting heat energy between the cold and hot sides.
However, Garafolo discloses that a TE module is user-controllable in setting a direction of heat flow actualized by the TE module in transporting heat energy between the cold and hot sides (see paragraph 0074-0076, Garafolo discloses an air temperature modifying element is selected from hot side heating elements 335 and cold side cooling elements 337 and that the hot side heating elements 335 and the cold side cooling elements 337 can be selectively switched to switch the positioning of the hot side heating elements 335 and the cold side cooling elements 337 in the respiration zone 314).
Therefore, 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 TE module of the modified Wisniewski to be user-controllable in setting a direction of heat flow actualized by the TE module in transporting heat energy between the cold and hot sides as taught by Garafolo for the purpose of providing flexibility and wearer comfort by allowing the heating and cooling to adapt to the wearer’s needs based on the current environmental conditions (see paragraphs 0074-0076 of Garafolo).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wisniewski (2022/0219026) in view of Garafolo (2017/0259088) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jayaraman (2015/0352382).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Wisniewski fails to disclose that the frame is formed by 3D printing.
However, Jayaraman teaches a frame that is formed by 3D printing which allows the frame to adapt to a specific wearer’s facial structure (see paragraphs 0043-0045, Jayaraman discloses that the upper frame portion and lower frame portion are both manufactured using 3D printing, the user face can be scanned to create the profile and structure of the face mask frame, see fig. 1 for frame 100 comprising upper frame portion 110 and lower frame portion 120).
Therefore, 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 frame of the modified Wisniewski to have the frame that is formed by 3D printing as taught by Jayaraman for the purpose of providing a support frame that can be customized to the wearer’s face, thereby providing a better fit (see paragraph 0043 of Jayaraman).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12 and 21 are allowed over the prior art.
Claims 6-12 and 21 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, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (KR 100450867) is cited to show a mask comprising a thermoelectric air conditioning system.
KR 19980059073 is cited to show a heat sink attached to a fan.
Liu (CN 109125971) is cited to sow a mask comprising a Peltier element, a fan, and a filter.
Chen (CN 210612330) is cited to show a cooling mask.
Xing (CN 110025900) is cited to show a heat conducting material comprising copper.
Koke (CN 102210911) is cited to show a respiratory device comprising a Peltier element for cooling.
Hansen (WO 93/24168) is cited to show a mask connected to a thermoelectric cooler.
Taylor (2023/0158196) is cited to show a mask comprising a cooling unit and a filter.
Lewis (2017/0246030) (2020/0345885) is cited to show a closed air conditioning circuit.
Blackstone (2008/0066484) is cited to show a user-controllable fan.
Richardson (5,452,712) is cited to show a mask comprising an opening that is attached to a container comprising desiccant.
Srinivasan (2021/0379318) is cited to show a device comprising a thermoelectric cooler.
Harvie (2008/0202516) is cited to show a portable pulmonary body core cooling and heating system.
Boehler (4,237,877) is cited to show a thermoelectric air conditioning system.
Reedy (2001/0052343) is cited to show a system for controlling the internal temperature of a respirator.
Santilli (5,655,374) is cited to show a surgical suit comprising a cooler.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TU A VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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.
/TU A VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785