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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2 appears to be a photograph. Photographs are not ordinarily permitted in utility patent applications unless a photograph is the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention (see 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1)). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5) because Figures 3 and 4 show(s) modified forms of construction in the same view. The two views in each of Figures 3 and 4 should be separately identified (e.g. Fig. 3a and 3b, Fig. 4a and 4b). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶0092 states both “power connector 30” and “power connection 30”. One form should be selected for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13, 17, 19-20, 22, 24-25, 27, 31-32, 34 and 38 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Ln. 2 introduces “a carrier” which is then referred to in Ln. 3 as “the person”. Note also that claim 20 instead refers to “a user”. One term should be selected for consistency to refer to the person intended to wear the mask.
Claim 31, Ln. 2 recites “a conductor fabric for a mask body of a protective mask” which should read “the conductor fabric for the mask body of the protective mask” following after claim 1
Claim 38, Ln. 1-2 recites “a conductor fabric by a method” which should read “the conductor fabric by the method” following after claims 1 and 31
Claim 38, Ln. 2 recites “a protective mask” which should read “the protective mask” following after claims 1 and 31
Claim 38, Ln. 3-4 recites “a mask body designed to cover a mouth and nose of a person” which is unnecessarily duplicative of what is already recited in claim 1, Ln. 2-3. The limitation should be removed since it is redundant.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the at least one housing encloses the electrical energy source and the control unit and is attached to the at least one holder of the mask body”. The claim thus defines at a minimum that a single housing must be able to enclose both the electrical energy source and the control unit while connecting to a single holder. However, the disclosure of the instant application clearly only contemplates two housings 35 which each respectively receive only one of the electrical energy source and the control unit and which then are each attached to a respective holder out of two holders 25 (Figs. 3-5; ¶¶0093-0094). The use in the claim of the language “at least one of” instead of “two” defines possible embodiments beyond the scope of what one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably construe from the originally filed disclosure of the instant application. It is thus found that applicant cannot be considered to have been reasonably in possession of the overall scope claimed by the instant claim at the time of the effective filing of the invention. It is suggested to clarify in the claim the two housings and two holders shown in Figs. 3-4.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 13, 19-20, 22, 25, 27, 31-32, 34 and 38 is/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.
Claims 4, 19, 22, 25, 27, 32, 34 and 38 recites the term “preferably” which deems the claims indefinite. The term “preferably” only represents a suggestion of intent and is not suitable language in U.S. patent claims because it leaves in doubt whether the subsequent limitation is intended to be positively recited or not. Any limitation recited following the term “preferably” cannot be read as positively recited. Applicant is suggested to either remove the term “preferably” and its subsequent limitations from all claims or to positively recite those limitations (without the term “preferably”). For the purposes of examination all limitations following the term “preferably” will not be read as positively recited.
Claims 7, 13, 22, 25, 31, 34 and 38 recites the phrase “in particular” (or “particularly” in claims 13 and 34) which deems the claims indefinite. The phrase “in particular” in each claim leaves the claim reciting both a broad limitation and a narrow limitation. That combination of broad limitation and narrow limitation when linked by the phrase “in particular” leaves in doubt which portion of the limitation is being positively recited. A broad limitation and a narrow limitation can only be present in a single claim when linked by the term “or” to show them are clear alternatives. Applicant is suggested to either remove the phrase “in particular” and its subsequent limitations from all claims or to positively recite those limitations (without the phrase “in particular”). For the purposes of examination all limitations following the phrase “in particular” will not be read as positively recited. Claim 31 is interpreted as producing the conductor fabric for the mask body of the protective mask of claim 1, based upon how the dependency has been clearly recited in claim 31 to depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 34 recites the limitation “the intervening connection layer” in Ln. 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 31 does not inherently require that the connection layer is an intervening layer. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “the connection layer”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 31-32, 34 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 recites a protective mask. Claim 31 recites dependence on claim 1 but then improperly attempts to only recite a subcombination of claim 1, i.e. only the conductive fabric instead of the full protective mask. Claim 31 is thus an improper dependent claim as it attempts to only refer to a portion of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 31 should be amended to positively recite the protective mask to avoid this issue. Attempting to instead amend claim 31 into independent form may result in a withdrawal of the claim based upon election by original presentation.
A similar issue is also present in claim 38 which recites dependence ultimately back to claim 1 while ignoring in its recitations that claim 1 has already recited the protective mask and its mask body. Further, claim 38 appears to only define the conductor fabric as being placed into a protective mask, which is already required by claim 1. Claim 38 thus fails to define any meaningful limitation beyond the requirements of claims 1 and 31.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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: “current coupling structure” in claim 2, “control unit” in claim 3, “signal unit” in claim 9.
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.
The corresponding structure for the “current coupling structure” is best understood from the specification as at least: power connector 30 (Figs. 3-4; ¶0092), see also the definition of “current coupling structure” in ¶0012 of the specification.
The corresponding structure for the “control unit” is best understood from the specification as at least: an electrical controller (¶0017).
The corresponding structure for the “signal unit” is best understood from the specification as at least: an LED (¶0025).
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of the connection layer” in claim 31.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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, 6, 11, 13, 19 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chongqing Dongyao Medical Tech (CN 111588111 A; citations from attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Chongqing discloses a protective mask (Fig. 2; Pg. 5) comprising: a mask body (Fig. 2 mask) designed to be worn by a person so as to cover a mouth and a nose of the person (Fig. 2 – standard wearing of surgical mask), wherein the mask body has a first layer (Fig. 2 composite structure) having an electrically conductive conductor fabric (Fig. 2 composite structure; Pg. 5), and wherein the conductor fabric is metallized (Pg. 5 – silver nano-wires) and comprises carbon (Pg. 5 – carbon nano-tubes). It is noted that applicant has used the term “first layer” in the claim in a manner which allows it to be formed of several layers (e.g. claim 20 where the conductive fabric of the first layer of claim 1 is further defined as comprising two distinct fabric layers).
Regarding claim 2, Chongqing discloses a current coupling structure (Pg. 5 – interface from micro high intensity pulse electric field generator to the mask body) through which an electric current is injectable into the mask body so as to generate a current flow through the conductor fabric.
Regarding claim 3, Chongqing discloses a control unit (Pg. 5 – main circuit and logic control module) and an electrical energy source (Pg. 5 – micro energy storage battery) electrically connected to one another and to the current coupling structure. The term “electrical energy source” is defined in ¶0016 of the instant specification.
Regarding claim 6, Chongqing discloses the control unit and the electrical energy source are designed to feed the electrical current into the mask body in a clocked manner via the current coupling structure (Pg. 5 – pulsed). The language “clocked” is defined in ¶0022 of the instant specification.
Regarding claim 11, Chongqing discloses the electrical energy source comprises a battery (Pg. 5 – micro energy storage battery)
Regarding claim 13, Chongqing discloses
Regarding claim 19, Chongqing discloses the metal has silver (Pg. 5), preferably substantially pure silver such as at least 99% silver.
Regarding claim 27, Chongqing discloses the mask body has a second layer which is designed as an air filter (Pg. 5 – any of the four filter layers not needed for reading on claim 1).
Claim(s) 1, 17, 19-20, 22, 27, 31-32 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lam (U.S. Pub. 2022/0030966).
Regarding claim 1, Lam discloses a protective mask (Fig. 2; ¶0022) comprising: a mask body (Fig. 2 mask) designed to be worn by a person so as to cover a mouth and a nose of the person (¶0022), wherein the mask body has a first layer (Fig. 2 #22, 23, 24; ¶0024) having an electrically conductive conductor fabric (¶0025 – silver coating will be electrically conductive), and wherein the conductor fabric is metallized (¶0025 – silver coating) and comprises carbon (¶0030 – activated carbon). It is noted that applicant has used the term “first layer” in the claim in a manner which allows it to be formed of several layers (e.g. claim 20 where the conductive fabric of the first layer of claim 1 is further defined as comprising two distinct fabric layers).
Regarding claim 17, Lam discloses the conductor fabric comprises polyamide (¶0025), and/or wherein the conductor fabric comprises fibers and is metallized by laminating the fibers of the conductor fabric with metal (¶0025 – silver coating).
Regarding claim 19, Lam discloses the metal has silver (¶0025), preferably substantially pure silver such as at least 99% silver (¶0025).
Regarding claim 20, Lam discloses second fabric layer of the carbon (¶0030). Only one portion of the “and/or” clause is required for reading on the claim.
Regarding claim 22, Lam discloses the first fabric layer and the second fabric layer are connected to one another via a connection layer (Fig. 2 #23; ¶0032), and wherein the connection layer preferably is an adhesive layer (¶0032) and in particular a hot melt adhesive layer (¶0032).
Regarding claim 27, Lam discloses the mask body has a second layer which is designed as an air filter (Fig. 2 #23; ¶0023)
Regarding claim 31, Lam discloses a method for producing the conductor fabric for the mask body of the protective mask in accordance with claim 1, comprising:(i) providing a first fabric layer of silver laminated polyamide fibers (Fig. 2 #22; ¶0025); (ii) providing a second fabric layer comprising carbon (Fig. 2 #24; ¶0030); (iii) providing a connection layer (Fig. 2 #23; ¶0032); and (iv) connecting the first fabric layer to the second fabric layer by means of the connection layer (¶0032 – hot melt adhesive).
Regarding claim 32, Lam discloses the connection layer is an adhesive layer (¶0032), and wherein in step (iv) the first fabric layer is adhered to the second fabric layer by means of the adhesive layer (¶0032), and wherein preferably the adhesive layer is a hot melt adhesive layer (¶0032), and wherein step (iv) comprises heating the hot melt adhesive layer (¶0032).
Regarding claim 38, Lam discloses a method comprising a step of providing the conductor fabric produced by the method according to claim 31 in the protective mask (Fig. 2) .
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chongqing Dongyao Medical Tech (CN 111588111 A) in view of Feasey et al. (U.S. Pub. 2018/0296864).
Regarding claim 9, Chongqing fails to disclose a signal unit electrically connected to the control unit, wherein the control unit is designed to activate the signal unit when a capacity of the electrical energy source is below a predefined minimum capacity value.
Feasey teaches a respirator and teaches a low battery indicator, such as at least one LED bulb, to indicate when a battery is low on power (¶0129).
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 Chongqing a signal unit electrically connected to the control unit, wherein the control unit is designed to activate the signal unit when a capacity of the electrical energy source is below a predefined minimum capacity value in order to provide the benefit of using a low battery indicator, such as at least one LED bulb, to indicate when the battery is low on power in view of Feasey.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chongqing Dongyao Medical Tech (CN 111588111 A) in view of Na Yong (KR 101628159 B1; citations from attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 24, Chongqing is silent as to whether the conductor fabric has a thickness of from 0.1 millimeter to 0.4 millimeter, from 0.2 millimeter to 0.3 millimeter, or from 0.26 millimeter to 0.272 millimeter.
Na Yong teaches a disposable mask and teaches common mask thicknesses as ranging between 0.3 to 2 mm (Pg. 5). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it prima facie obvious when selecting a particular thickness for the mask of Chongqing to have selected from amongst common mask thicknesses, with a lower range thickness falling within the claimed range.
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 Chongqing the conductor fabric has a thickness of from 0.3 millimeter to 0.4 millimeter based upon an obvious design choice of mask thickness in the mask art with mask thickness of 0.3 to 2 mm recognized as common in view of Na Yong.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chongqing Dongyao Medical Tech (CN 111588111 A) in view of Xu (CN 111096500 A; citations from attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 25, Chongqing is silent as to whether the conductor fabric has an electrical resistance that is at least approximately 8 ohms and in particular at least approximately 12 ohms, and wherein the electrical resistance of the conductor fabric preferably is at most approximately 50 ohms.
Xu teaches a mask including nanometer silver (Pg 4) and which provides an electrical resistance that is at least approximately 8 ohms (Pg. 4 – 10-100 ohms). Xu teaches this as a desirable electrical resistance range which uses electrodes to cause conductance in a mask with nanometer silver (Pg. 4).
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 Chongqing the conductor fabric has an electrical resistance that is at least approximately 8 ohms in order to provide the benefit of specifying a particular electrical resistance in the mask within a desirable electrical resistance range in the art in view of Xu.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam (U.S. Pub. 2022/0030966).
Regarding claim 34, Lam discloses step (iv) comprises conveying the first fabric layer, the second fabric layer, and the connection layer through a roller (¶0032),
Lam fails to explicitly disclose the heated rolling uses two rollers.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art of mask manufacturing would have considered it prima facie obvious that the use of a roller in Lam is obviously suggestive of the use of a pair of rollers in order to move the materials from both a top and bottom surface, as is conventional in the art. One roller would obviously be located to contact a top surface of material while a second roller would obviously be located to contact a bottom surface of material.
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 Lam the heated rolling uses two rollers based upon the obvious expectation of one of ordinary skill in the art of mask manufacturing that the mask material should be contacted along both a top surface and a bottom surface during heat rolling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, and 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.
Claim(s) 7 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.
Claim(s) 10 is/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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, Chongqing fails to teach or suggest two housings, wherein the mask body is provided with two holders, wherein the two housings enclose the electrical energy source and the control unit, respectively, and are attached to the two holders of the mask body, respectively. It is noted that based upon the above 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, and in light of the disclosure of the instant application, the claim must be read as defining two housings and two holders in order to satisfactorily perform the function of the claim. Chongqing has no consideration of two housings and two holders.
No other prior art is found which would suitably read on the instant claim and its overall limitations.
It is thus found that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention would only have arrived at the instantly claimed invention by way of improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 7, Chongqing fails to teach or suggest a cycle of the electric current lasts between approximately 2 seconds and approximately 10 seconds, and in particular approximately 5 seconds, and/or wherein the control unit and the electrical energy source are designed to inject the electrical current in the form of Gaussian waves in a clocked manner into the mask body via the current coupling structure. Chongqing only teaches a pulse width of not more than 100 µs, which is far shorter than the cycling durations recited by the instant claim. And Chongqing fails to teach or suggest injecting current in the form of Gaussian waves.
It is thus found that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention would only have arrived at the instantly claimed invention by way of improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 10, Chongqing fails to teach or suggest a humidity sensor electrically connected to the control unit and coupled to the conductor fabric, wherein the control unit is designed to inject the electric current into the mask body via the current coupling structure when a humidity determined by the humidity sensor is above a predefined basic humidity value. Chongqing has no consideration of controlling current injection based upon a sensed humidity value.
It is thus found that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention would only have arrived at the instantly claimed invention by way of improper hindsight reasoning.
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. It is noted that claim 1 is particularly broad as many masks in the art are known to use both some form of metal together in the same mask with some form of carbon (e.g. activated carbon, carbon fiber, carbon nanotube, etc.).
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