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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 30 Jan 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 14-23, 37 and 40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 30 Jan 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Ln. 12 recites “the oxidant” which should read “the at least one oxidant” for consistency
Claim 1, Ln. 12-13 twice recites “the contaminant” which should read “the at least one contaminant” for consistency
Claim 3, Ln. 2 recites “the contaminant and the oxidant” which should read “the at least one contaminant and the at least one oxidant” for consistency
Claim 7, Ln. 2 recites “the oxidant” which should read “the at least one oxidant” for consistency
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (CN 111569287 A; citations from attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a respirator (Figs. 2-3; Pg. 4-6), comprising i) a face mask (Fig. 2 #1; Pg. 4); ii) a porous filter (Fig. 3 #371; Pg. 5) comprising a filtration material (Pg. 5 – ozone catalyst in honeycomb structure, modified active carbon); iii) an air flow system (parts of Fig. 3) in fluid communication with the porous filter and the face mask (Figs. 2-3), comprising (a) an enclosed container (Fig. 3 #31; Pg. 4); and (b) a blower (Fig. 3 #331; Pg. 4-6) housed within the enclosed container (Fig. 3), wherein the air flow system is configured to generate a flow of air such that ambient air passes through the porous filter to the face mask (Figs. 2-3; Pg. 4); and iv) an oxidant generator (Fig. 3 #351; Pg. 5) configured to produce at least one oxidant (Pg. 5 – ozone); wherein at least one contaminant in the flow of air is adsorbed by the porous filter (Pg. 5 – by the modified active carbon), and the filtration material catalyzes an oxidation reaction between the oxidant and the at least one contaminant to promote decomposition of the at least one contaminant on the porous filter (Pg. 5-6 – operation of ozone together with the modified active carbon). It is noted that there are additional structures in the claim beyond the blower which are located within the instant application’s disclosed “enclosed container” (e.g. Figs. 8A-8B with removable filter case 110 (i.e. the claimed porous filter) and oxidant generator 850 both within housing 801). Thus, the prior art is not limited to reading only those elements expressly recited as parts of the air flow system from being located within the claimed enclosed container.
Regarding claim 2, Yang discloses the oxidant generator (Fig. 3 #351) is positioned before the porous filter (Fig. 3 #371) along the direction of the flow of air (Pg. 5-6).
Regarding claim 3, Yang discloses the filtration material has a pore size that permits adsorption of the contaminant and the oxidant (Pg. 5-6). It is noted that no particular pore size is required so long as adsorption can occur.
Regarding claim 5, Yang discloses the respirator further comprises a mechanical filter (Fig. 3 #321; Pg. 4) positioned before the porous filter along the direction of the flow of air.
Regarding claim 7, Yang discloses the oxidant generator is an ozone generator and the oxidant is ozone (Pg. 5-6).
Regarding claim 8, Yang discloses the air flow system further comprises a tube (Fig. 2 #2; Pg. 4) connecting the enclosed container to the face mask, such that the flow of air passes through the tube.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Affonso et al. (WO 03/092748 A1) in view of Yang et al. (CN 111569287 A; citations from attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Affonso discloses a respirator (Fig. 4; Pg. 23-24), comprising i) a face mask (Fig. 4 “F”; Pg. 24); ii) a porous filter (Fig. 4 “A” or “B”; Pg. 23-24) comprising a filtration material (Pg. 20-21 – e.g. zeolite in adsorbent chamber); iii) an air flow system (Fig. 4 “D”; Pg. 24) in fluid communication with the porous filter and the face mask (Fig. 4; Pg. 23-24), comprising (a) an enclosed container (Fig. 4 housing of “D”); and (b) a pump housed within the enclosed container (Pg. 24), wherein the air flow system is configured to generate a flow of air such that ambient air passes through the porous filter to the face mask (Pg. 24 – draws in contaminated air which is purified before delivery to the mask); and iv) an oxidant generator (Pg. 13 – ozone generator upstream of or in the catalytic zone) configured to produce at least one oxidant (Pg. 13 – ozone); wherein at least one contaminant in the flow of air is adsorbed by the porous filter (Pg. 20-21 – e.g. by zeolite), and the filtration material catalyzes an oxidation reaction between the oxidant and the at least one contaminant to promote decomposition of the at least one contaminant on the porous filter (Pg. 20-21 & 23-24 – operation of oxidation catalyst against toxic substances).
Affonso fails to disclose the pump is a blower.
Yang teaches a respirator (Figs. 2-3) including a blower (Fig. 3 #331; Pg. 4-6) to draw in ambient air prior to being treated with ozone (at Fig. 3 #35; Pg. 5). Yang teaches a blower as providing the benefit of providing a continuous suction of ambient air into the respirator (Pg. 4-6). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have obviously recognized that blowers and other forms of pump are often interchanged in the respirator art as they perform the same function of allowing a suctioning of ambient air for purification and subsequent breathing.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specified in Affonso the pump is a blower in order to a) provide the benefit of delivering a continuous suction of ambient air into the respirator and b) also based upon an obvious choice to select a blower as one particular form of pump recognized as commonly use in the respirator art to create a suctioning of ambient air for purification and subsequent breathing, in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 2, Affonso teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches the oxidant generator is positioned before the porous filter along the direction of the flow of air (Pg. 13 – ozone generator upstream of the catalytic zone).
Regarding claim 3, Affonso teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches the filtration material has a pore size that permits adsorption of the contaminant and the oxidant (Pg. 20-21 & 23-24 – operation of oxidation catalyst against toxic substances). It is noted that no particular pore size is required so long as adsorption can occur.
Regarding claim 7, Affonso teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches the oxidant generator is an ozone generator (Pg. 13 – ozone generator) and the oxidant is ozone.
Regarding claim 8, Affonso teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches the air flow system further comprises a tube (Fig. 4 – tube required to connect from “A” to “G”) connecting the enclosed container to the face mask, such that the flow of air passes through the tube.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Affonso et al. (WO 03/092748 A1) in view of Yang et al. (CN 111569287 A) and further in view of Law et al. (U.S. Pub. 2006/0024217).
Regarding claim 4, Affonso teaches the invention as modified above and further teaches the filtration material comprises zeolite (Pg. 20-21).
Affonso is silent as to the filtration material having a pore size in the range of 2 Angstroms to 20 Angstroms.
Law teaches an air cleaner filter system uses zeolite (¶0021) and teaches zeolite as effective with a pore size of 4 to 20 Angstroms (¶0021). Law teaches this size as effective to hold both contaminant and oxidant (¶0021).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specified in the modified Affonso the filtration material having a pore size in the range of 2 Angstroms to 20 Angstroms in order to provide the benefit of specifying a particular pore size for the zeolite which is recognized in the filtration art as particularly effective for holding both contaminant and oxidant in view of Law.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111569287 A) and further in view of Hunter et al. (U.S. Pub. 2017/0189727).
Regarding claim 6, Yang is silent as to whether the mechanical filter is a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter.
Hunter teaches an air purifying system (e.g. Figs. 1& 4) including a pre-filter 222 formed as a HEPA filter (¶0067). Hunter teaches an upstream HEPA filter as providing the benefit of filtering sub-micron particles as well as volatile organic compound (VOCs) and smaller acid (SOx/NOx) gas molecules, as well as removing odors/smells, while additionally minimizing intrusion of moisture/water (¶0067).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have specified in Yang the mechanical filter is a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter in order to provide the benefit of filtering sub-micron particles as well as volatile organic compound (VOCs) and smaller acid (SOx/NOx) gas molecules, as well as removing odors/smells, while additionally minimizing intrusion of moisture/water in view of Hunter.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 111569287 A) and further in view of Illg et al. (DE 20 2020 105 280 U1; citations from attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, Yang discloses the face mask comprises a mask outlet valve (Fig. 1 #6; Pg. 6).
Yang fails to disclose the face mask comprises a mask inlet valve, wherein the tube connects the enclosed container to the face mask through the mask inlet valve, and the mask inlet valve is configured for a one-way flow of air into the face mask.
Illg teaches a respirator (Fig. 1; Pg. 8) including a face mask (Fig. 1 #1; Pg. 8) comprising a mask inlet valve (Fig. 1 #11; Pg. 8), wherein a tube (Fig. 1 #31; Pg. 8) connects a filter unit (Fig. 1 #2; Pg. 8; see also Fig. 3 with embodiment having an ozone generator – Pg. 11) to the face mask through the mask inlet valve, and the mask inlet valve is configured for a one-way flow of air into the face mask (Pg. 8 – one-way operation of valves 11, 12 in Fig. 1). Illg teaches a mask inlet valve as providing the benefit of ensuring air is only delivered into the mask during inhalation (Pg. 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in Yang the face mask comprises a mask inlet valve, wherein the tube connects the enclosed container to the face mask through the mask inlet valve, and the mask inlet valve is configured for a one-way flow of air into the face mask in order to provide the benefit of ensuring air is only delivered into the mask during inhalation in view of Illg. It is noted that the exit valve 12 of Illg could also be obviously incorporated to replace the one-way valve 6 of Yang based upon its one-way operation of releasing gas from respiratory 1 in Illg, which is coordinated with the operation of inlet valve 11 (Pg. 8).
Regarding claim 10, Yang teaches the invention as modified above and Illg as incorporated therein further teaches the air flow system further comprises a second tube (Fig. 1 #32; Pg. 8) connecting the face mask to the enclosed container (Fig. 1 location of #2 as corresponding to the container of Yang), and the mask outlet valve (Fig. 1 #12; Pg. 8) of the face mask is connected to the second tube and configured for a one-way flow of air out of the face mask (Pg. 8 – one-way operation of valves 11, 12 in Fig. 1). It is noted that in this claim the exit valve 12 of Illg is read as the mask outlet valve of the claim instead of the one-way valve 6 of Yang.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Affonso et al. (WO 03/092748 A1) in view of Yang et al. (CN 111569287 A) and further in view of Illg et al. (DE 20 2020 105 280 U1; citations from attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, Affonso teaches the invention as modified above but fails to teach the face mask comprises a mask inlet valve and a mask outlet valve, wherein the tube connects the enclosed container to the face mask through the mask inlet valve, and the mask inlet valve is configured for a one-way flow of air into the face mask.
Illg teaches a respirator (Fig. 1; Pg. 8) including a face mask (Fig. 1 #1; Pg. 8) comprising a mask inlet valve (Fig. 1 #11; Pg. 8) and a mask outlet valve (Fig. 1 #12; Pg. 8), wherein a tube (Fig. 1 #31; Pg. 8) connects a filter unit (Fig. 1 #2; Pg. 8; see also Fig. 3 with embodiment having an ozone generator – Pg. 11) to the face mask through the mask inlet valve, and the mask inlet valve is configured for a one-way flow of air into the face mask (Pg. 8 – one-way operation of valves 11, 12 in Fig. 1). Illg teaches mask inlet and outlet valves as providing the benefit of ensuring air is only delivered into the mask during inhalation and only released from the mask during exhalation (Pg. 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated in the modified Affonso the face mask comprises a mask inlet valve and a mask outlet valve, wherein the tube connects the enclosed container to the face mask through the mask inlet valve, and the mask inlet valve is configured for a one-way flow of air into the face mask in order to provide the benefit of ensuring air is only delivered into the mask during inhalation and only released from the mask during exhalation in view of Illg.
Regarding claim 10, Affonso teaches the invention as modified above and Illg as incorporated therein further teaches the air flow system further comprises a second tube (Fig. 1 #32; Pg. 8) connecting the face mask to the enclosed container (Fig. location of #2 as corresponding to the container of Affonso), and the mask outlet valve of the face mask is connected to the second tube and configured for a one-way flow of air out of the face mask (Pg. 8 – one-way operation of valves 11, 12 in Fig. 1). It is noted that Affonso does also teach a second tube for return of exhaled air (Fig. 4 through “H”; Pg. 24).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, see PTO-892 for additional attached references. Regarding claim 1 further attention is specifically drawn to: Xu (CN 106512246 A; Fig. 1), Zereshkian (U.S. Pub. 2017/0165445; Figs. 1-2 & 4-5), Meng et al. (CN 107803226 A; Fig. 1), and Illg et al. (DE 20 2020 105 280 U1; Figs. 1 & 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH D BOECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-0376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 4:00 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, 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.
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785