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
The present office action is in response to the Arguments/Remarks filed 05/11/2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 16 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-17 are presenting pending in this application.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 6, 10, and 16 to address minor informalities. Therefore, the previously held claim objection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 8, 12-13, and 16 to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112. Therefore, the previously held claim rejection are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Section, “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) - Wallace” of Page 8, filed 05/11/2026, with respect to claims 1-7, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive as the destinations of the components to corresponding limitation which Examiner relied upon in the preceding Office action does not read into the amended claim.
However, upon further consideration, the ground of rejection has been modified as necessitated by the amendments. Examiner notes the Wallace discloses the respirator 10 may include a filtering element for filtering out contaminant or may include a dedicated air supply (¶0025) and has a facemask (a full facemask 12, Fig 1) with a facepiece (a portion between a nose component and an outer perimeter of the full facemask) can be a body of the amended claim and wherein the body is configured to receive at least one of a filter as described by Wallace. Thus, the previous ground of rejection has been modified with re-designations of parts to corresponding limitations as discussed below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Section, “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) - Wu” of Page 9, filed 05/11/2026, with respect to claims 1-3, 12, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive as the welding mask of Wu does not suggest or teach wherein the body is configured to receive at least one of a filter and a regulator ,and the haptic sending unit is an accelerometer. Thus, the previously held claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) in view of Wu are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Section, “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) - Hu et al.” of Page 10, filed 05/11/2026, with respect to claims 1, 4, 6-8, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive as the body of Hu et al. which is arranged apart from the facepiece has a volume does not suggest or teach wherein the body is configured to receive at least one of a filter and a regulator. Thus, the previously held claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) in view of Hu et al. are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Section, “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) - Yu et al.” of Page 11, filed 05/11/2026, with respect to claims 1, 4-5, 14, and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive as a smart helmet comprising a helmet shell, and a visor but Yu et al. does not suggest or teach wherein the body is configured to receive at least one of a filter and a regulator. Thus, the previously held claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) in view of Yu et al. are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Sections under 35 U.S.C. §103 of Pages 12-13, filed 05/11/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive as amended independent claims overcome the prior arts which were relied in the preceding Office action. Thus, the previously held claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, and 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites, “the haptic sensor unit” in ln 1-2 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the haptic sensing unit-- for consistency with claim 1.
Claim 6 recites, “the haptic sensor unit” in ln 1 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the haptic sensing unit-- for consistency with claim 1.
Claim 7 recites, “the haptic sensor unit” in ln 1-2 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the haptic sensing unit-- for constancy with claim 1.
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.
Claims 2-3, 6, 8, 12-13, and 16-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites, “at least one haptic sensor” in ln 2 which renders claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the “accelerometer” is defined as at least one haptic sensor or the haptic sensing unit is further defining at least one different haptic sensor which is different from claim 1. For examination purposes, it is interpreted to as --at least one different haptic sensor--.
Claim 3 is rejected by virtue of dependency to claim 2.
Claim 3 recites, “wherein the at least one haptic sensor comprises at least one of an accelerometer, a transducer” in ln 1-2 which renders claim indefinite. Claim 1 recites the haptic sensing unit comprises an accelerometer, so thus it is unclear whether claim 3 is referring to the accelerometer of claim 1 or further defining the at least one haptic sensor to have same type of sensor as claim 1.
For examination purposes, it is interpreted to as -- wherein the at least one different haptic sensor comprises at least one of a transducer and a touch sensor--.
Claim 6 recites, “a plurality of haptic sensors” in ln 2 which renders claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the “plurality of haptic sensors” are also same accelerometers which are addition to the accelerometer of claim 1 or newly introduced sensors that are different from the accelerometer of claim 1 such as a touch sensor, an infrared sensor, or a transducer as described in ¶0045.
For examination purposes, it is interpreted as to newly introducing sensor(s) addition to the accelerometer of claim 1 that are different than the accelerometer sensor.
Claim 8 recites, “a first haptic sensor” in ln 2 and “a second haptic sensor” in ln 3 which renders claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the first and second haptic sensors are also same accelerometers which are addition to the accelerometer of claim 1 or newly introduced sensors that are different from the accelerometer of claim 1 such as a touch sensor, an infrared sensor, or a transducer as described in ¶0045.
For examination purposes, it is interpreted as to newly introducing sensor(s) addition to the accelerometer of claim 1 that are different than the accelerometer sensor.
Claims 12-13 recites, “a first haptic sensor” in ln 2 which renders claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the first haptic sensor is also same accelerometer which are addition to the accelerometer of claim 1 or newly introduced sensor that are different from the accelerometer of claim 1 such as a touch sensor, an infrared sensor, or a transducer as described in ¶0045.
For examination purposes, it is interpreted as to newly introducing sensor(s) addition to the accelerometer of claim 1 that are different than the accelerometer sensor.
Claim 16 recites, “the haptic sensing unit having a haptic sensor” in ln 4-5 which renders claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the “haptic sensor” is also the “accelerometer” in ln 4 or a different sensor having means to sense a touch pattern.
For examination purposes, it is interpreted as to newly introducing sensor which are different than the accelerometer sensor.
Claim 17 is rejected by virtue of dependency to claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wallace (US 20200306567 A1; cited on IDS filed on 05/31/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Wallace discloses, a respiratory device (10, Fig 1), comprising:
a body (a facemask 12, Fig 1), at least a portion of the body defining a volume (a space with the facemask to receive user’s face; ¶0025, “a facemask 12 sized and configured to fit and seal around the user's face… sized to fit around substantially the entirety of the user's face”);
wherein the body is configured to receive at least one of a filter (¶0025, “…may include a filtering element for filtering out contaminants, or may include a dedicated air supply”)
a facepiece (see annotation below, Fig 1) coupled to the body (the facepiece is coupled to the facemask as shown in Fig 1); and
PNG
media_image1.png
694
657
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a haptic sensing unit (18, Fig 1) comprising an accelerometer (¶0026, “The facemask 12 may include at least one haptic device 18 sized to be received within or on a portion of the facemask 12. The haptic device 18 may be permanently retained or removably coupled to the facemask 12”; ¶0032, “the haptic device 18 also includes a gyroscope 38 and/or an accelerometer 40, which may be coupled to the power supply 26 and/or the processor 22”), the haptic sensing unit configured to sense a touch pattern occurring on at least a portion of the body (¶0034, “may manually trigger the transmission of a request for assistance, or conversely, a signal indicating a positive status, by touching a predetermined portion of the haptic device 18 or by speaking a command into the haptic device 18”).
Regarding claim 2, Wallace discloses, the respiratory device of claim 1 as discussed above.
Wallace further discloses, wherein the haptic sensing unit comprises at least one different haptic sensor (¶0026-34).
Regarding claim 3, Wallace discloses, the respiratory device of claim 2 as discussed above.
Wallace further discloses, wherein the at least one haptic sensor comprises at least one different haptic sensor of a touch sensor (¶0034).
Regarding claim 4, Wallace discloses, the respiratory device of claim 1 as discussed above.
Wallace further discloses, wherein the haptic sensor unit is programmed to execute a user-definable command (¶0026-34).
Regarding claim 5, Wallace discloses, the respiratory device of claim 4 as discussed above.
Wallace further discloses, wherein the user definable command includes one or more of the following commands: Feature on/off functionality (¶0007, “emergency request for assistance”; ¶0026-34, “emergency request”, “by touching a predetermined portion of the haptic device 18 or by speaking a command into the haptic device 18”).
Regarding claim 6, Wallace discloses, the respiratory device of claim 1 as discussed above.
Wallace further discloses, the haptic sensor unit comprises a plurality of haptic sensors (24a and 24b as shown in Fig 1), wherein each sensor is disposed in a different portion of the body (24a and 24b are located in different location as shown in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 7, Wallace discloses, the respiratory device of claim 1 as discussed above.
Wallace further discloses, wherein the haptic sensor unit is disposed in a Mask Communication Unit (MCU) (22, Fig 1; ¶0026) at least partially located within the volume.
Regarding claim 15, Wallace discloses, the respiratory device of claim 7 as discussed above.
Wallace further discloses, at least one electrical function component (20, Fig 1; ¶0026, the substrate 20 includes a printed circuit board in communication with the processor or controller 22 having processing circuitry configured processes the various signals sent to and/or received from the haptic device 18”) in communication with the MCU; and a rechargeable power (26, Fig 1; ¶0029, “the power source 26 may be rechargeable”) source at least partially located within the volume, the rechargeable power source providing power to each of the at least one electrical function components (¶0029, “he power source 26, such as a battery, may be in electrical communication with the processor 22 to provide power to the various components of the haptic device 18 and may be disposed on one side of the processor 22”).
Regarding claim 16, Wallace discloses, a method (abstract, “A method and system for communication with a use”) of commanding an electrical function component of a respiratory device (10, Fig 1), comprising:
a body (a facemask 12, Fig 1), wherein the body is configured to receive at least one of a filter and a regulator (¶0025, “…may include a filtering element for filtering out contaminants, or may include a dedicated air supply”) and a facepiece (see annotation below, Fig 1) coupled to the body (the facepiece is coupled to the facemask as shown in Fig 1) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
694
657
media_image1.png
Greyscale
providing a haptic sensing unit (24a and 24b of 18, Fig 1) comprising an accelerometer (¶0026, “The facemask 12 may include at least one haptic device 18 sized to be received within or on a portion of the facemask 12. The haptic device 18 may be permanently retained or removably coupled to the facemask 12”; ¶0032, “the haptic device 18 also includes a gyroscope 38 and/or an accelerometer 40, which may be coupled to the power supply 26 and/or the processor 22”), the haptic sensing unit having a haptic sensor configured to sense touch pattern occurring on at least a first portion of the facepiece or the body (¶0026-34, “the haptic device 18 may include a microphone (not shown) or a touch sensor (not shown) in communication with the processor 22”);
executing a user definable command when the haptic sensor senses a touch pattern occurring on at least a portion of the body (¶0026-34); and
triggering the use of the electrical function component based on the touch pattern sensed (¶0026-34).
Regarding claim 17, Wallace discloses, the method of claim 16 as discussed above.
Wallace further discloses, wherein the user definable command includes one or more of the following commands: Feature on/off functionality (¶0007, “emergency request for assistance”; ¶0026-34, “emergency request”, “by touching a predetermined portion of the haptic device 18 or by speaking a command into the haptic device 18”).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (US 20200306567 A1; cited on IDS filed on 05/31/2023) in view of Guelzow et al. (US 20080023002 A1; cited in preceding Office action).
Regarding claim 14. Wallace discloses the respiratory device of claim 1 as discussed above.
While Wallace identifies problems such as first responders exposed to dangerous environments, limitation communication, and the visual impairments due to gases and fire or other factors and the need of a personal protection equipment and/or respiratory protection (¶0002-0003), Wallace does not specifically discloses an In-Mask Display.
However, Guelzow et al. which is analogous art to the claimed invention for providing protection to the first responders and assist in many emergency response situations from visual impairment and communication needs (¶0004-0005), teaches an In-Mask Display (Fig 7) in purpose of provide means of communicating status information (¶0008-0011) including a variety of information (¶0031) and sight assistance in smoke or darkness (¶0037) without obstructing the normal vision of the wearer (¶0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wallace to include an In-Mask Display in purpose of provide means of communicating status information (¶0008-0011) including a variety of information (¶0031) and sight assistance in smoke or darkness (¶0037) without obstructing the normal vision of the wearer (¶0041).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8, and 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 9-11 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.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding the allowable subject matters of claims 8-9, and 11-13, the closest identified prior arts documents of record is Hu et al. (machine translation of CN 111558181 A1), Brice et al. (US Pat 20180213873) and Wu (machine translation of WO 2018223942 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Hu et al. discloses, wherein the haptic sensing unit comprises a first haptic sensor that senses a touch pattern performed on the facepiece (101 of the mask 1, Fig 1; PG 8, ln 36- PG 9, ln 17) and a second haptic sensor that senses a touch pattern performed on the body (8, Fig 1; PG 8, ln 29-35), but Hu et al. does not specifically discloses, having the haptic sensing unit configured to sense a touch pattern occurring on at least a portion of the facepiece or the body while the body is configured to receive at least one of a filter and a regulator.
Regarding claims 9-10, Wu teaches the touch pattern includes a first double touch, and a second double touch and the haptic sensing unit is configured to distinguish between a first touch pattern executed on a first portion of the facepiece and a second touch pattern executed on a second portion of the facepiece in order to control the dimming light, but the prior art does not specifically discloses, wherein the body is configured to receive at least one of a filter and a regulator, and a haptic sensing unit comprising an accelerometer, and the haptic sensing unit configured to sense a touch pattern occurring on at least a portion of the facepiece or the body.
Regarding claim 11, Brice et al. discloses, a user display toggles between a first setting triggered by a first double touch and a second display setting triggered by a second double touch executed within a defined timer interval, but Brice et al. fails to discloses the main component of the amended claim 1 and specifically, a haptic sensing unit comprising an accelerometer.
Regarding claim 12-13, Wu discloses, wherein a first haptic sensor is mounted on a centerline of the facepiece (101, Figs 1-2, and 4; Examiner note that the 101b is a touch type liquid crystal display panel which are located at the centerline of the facepiece), but the body of the welding mask of Wu fails to suggest or teach wherein the body is configured to receive at least one of a filter and a regulator, and a haptic sensing unit comprising an accelerometer, and the haptic sensing unit configured to sense a touch pattern occurring on at least a portion of the facepiece or the body.
No other prior arts have been found that teaches or suggest all the claimed features as discussed above.
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 JAEICK JANG whose telephone number is (703)756-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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 D 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.
/J.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights