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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-22,24-26 and 28-32 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 16-22, 24-26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birli et al. (US Patent No. 7,221,966) hereinafter Birli in view of Boesen et al. (US2018/0007994) hereinafter Bosesen.
Per claim 16, Birli discloses a short-range communication device (see figure 4 and 11, items 52, 50, 62 and 70) for a respirator worn by a user(see figure 4 and 11 item 54), the short-range communication device comprising: (a) a first transmitting unit (see figure 4 and item 52), enclosed in a first attached to an our surface of the respirator (see figures 1 and 2 and item 10 can be construed as the surface of respirator), including a microphone configured to pick up a voice of the user; and (b) a first receiving unit (see figures 4 and 11 and items 56(a), 58(a) and 62), enclosed in a second housing physically separate from the first housing and attachable to an article of personal protective equipment (e.g. a belt) or other wearable worn by the user, the first receiver unit, including at least one loudspeaker configured to play an audio signal (either the lapel unit or the walkie talkie can be read as a loudspeaker);
wherein the first transmitting unit (see column 3 and lines 49-colunn 4 and lines 20) and the first receiving unit are configured to automatically establish a communication channel in response to proximity such that the channel is established only when a separation between the first transmitting unit and the first receiving is equal to or less than a user adjustable predetermined distance ( see column 6 and lines 30-42, a body length from the head area of a user to its the waist).
Birli is silent that the device comprises a near field magnetic induction (NFMI) module configured to establish a direct wireless communication channel between the transmitting unit and the receiving unit without an intermediate transceiver and without any prior device pairing. Boesen teaches the utilization of NFMI module (see para.25, due to the natural of its magnetic coupling, usually a passive earplug does not need batterie or pairing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Bosesen with Birli’s system since it requires less or no power/battery during usage and robust for a user in a hostile environment.
Per claim 17, Birli further teaches that the predetermined distance is in the range of about 0.1 meter to about 3.5 meters (see figure 4, the distance between the head and waist is about the range of .1 to 3.5 meters).
Per claim 18, Birli further teaches that first transmitting unit and the first receiving unit each include a self-contained power supply disposed within the respective housings (see column 3 and lines 49-60, “battery powered”).
Per claim 19, Birli further teaches that the first transmitting unit and the first receiving unit each comprise attachment means selected from adhesives or mechanical fasteners for removable or permanent mounting on the personal protective equipment (see figure 4 and 11).
Per claim 20, Birli further teaches that the attachment means comprise a clamp, a clip, or a hook-and-loop fastener configured to secure the first transmitting unit or the first receiving unit to the personal protective equipment (see figure 4, the walkie talkie is secure on the waist area).
Per claims 21 and 28, Birli teaches the short range communication system could Bluetooth or Zigbee. It is inherited that such communication system is designed to refrain from/prevent establishment of playing an audio signal when the distance between the first transmitting unit and the first receiving unit exceeds the predetermined distance (low power and out of range).
Per claim 25, Birli further teaches that the at least one of the housings of the first transmitting unit or the first receiving unit is waterproof or water-resistant (see figure 1, show the transceiver is sealed within the mask).
Per claim 22, Birli discloses a short range communication device as depicted in claim 16. Birli doesn’t teach that the first transmitting unit further comprises a visual indicator that provides a visible indication when the microphone is actively picking up the user's voice signal. However, the examiner takes an official notice that it is notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a visual indicator such that the user would be able to be alerted or provided an indication of on going mic status.
Per claim 24, Birli discloses a short range communication device as depicted in claim 16. Birli doesn’t teach that an anti-feedback mechanism configured to suppress any echo of the user's voice signal in the first receiving unit. However, the examiner takes an official notice that it is notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to suppress noise or echo caused within the mask.
Per claim 26, Birli discloses a short range communication device as depicted in claim 16. Birli doesn’t teach that each of the first transmitting unit and the first receiving unit is contained in a housing formed by injection molding or vacuum forming of a rigid or semi-rigid polymeric material. However, the examiner takes an official notice that it is notoriously well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to injection molding or form of polymeric material in order to make the device more rigid and tough in a hash environment such as fire or flooding.
Claim(s) 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birli and Boesen in further view of Riha (WO 2018017338 A1) hereinafter Riha.
Per claim 29, Birli and Boesen discloses a system comprising: the short-range communication device of claim 16. Birli is silent on a second short-range communication device attachable to a second personal protective equipment or personal protective device worn by a second user, the second short-range communication device having a second transmitting unit and a second receiving unit arranged in separate housings, wherein the first transmitting unit is configured to wirelessly transmit the voice signal of the user for reception by the second receiving unit only when the first short-range communication device and the second short-range communication device are at a distance from each other that is equal to or less than the predetermined distance. Riha teaches such additional features (see figure 2 and corresponding paragraphs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Riha with Birli to cope with high noise level in an area that requires PPE or PPD.
Per claim 30, combination of Birli and Riha further teaches that the second short-range communication device is configured so that only the second user hears the first user's transmitted voice signal when the second short-range communication device is within the predetermined distance of the short-range communication device (see Birli’s figure 1 and item 34 and 38, air channel inside the mask).
Per claim 31, Birli teaches a walkie-talkie in which the short-range communication device and the second short-range communication device include a prioritization module that prevents the second transmitting unit from transmitting a voice signal to the first receiving unit while the first transmitting unit is actively transmitting the voice signal to the second receiving unit (see figures 4, 11 and corresponding paragraphs).
Per claim 32, Birli further teaches a respirator, wherein the first transmitting unit is attached to the respirator (see figure 1-3 and 9, 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPE YUWEN PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7855. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
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.
/YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
YUWEN . PAN
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights