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 .
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.
Claims 1, 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (WO 2020/071601, as cited on the 9/24/23 IDS), hereinafter Kim in view of Adams et al (US 2008/0035145).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a wearable air purification system (Figs. 1-5) comprising:
a wearable support (Figs. 1-33: 20) configured to be supported on or around a head region of a user (Fig. 1: headband 20 is worn around the head);
an air delivery mask connected to the wearable support (Figs. 1-2: air delivery mask 70) which is shaped to bound an air delivery region (Fig. 1: mask 70 covers the nose and mouth) and to deliver a flow of air to the air delivery region; (Page 2 of the translation “purified air is supplied to the inside through the air purification unit”, page 3 “first and second air purification units 31 and 32 respectively suck air from the outside and filter it, and then supply it to the inside of the mask unit 70”)
an illumination source (Page 4 of the translation “the mask unit 70 may be driven through a PDLC method in which transmittance is controlled by electricity or a light source”); but does not teach configured to control the illumination source so as to convey information to a user in response to data received by the control system.
However, Adams teaches a communication system with a heads up display for a breathing apparatus (Abstract) comprising one or more light emitting elements configured to illuminate at least a portion of the air delivery mask. (Figs. 23-25, LEDS 850, 852, 854, 856, 860, 862, paragraphs 83, 84, Fig. 23, Fig. 25 LEDS are located on element 24) with a control system(paragraphs 72-71, controller assembly 28) configured to control the illumination source so as to convey information to a user in response to data received by the control system. (Fig. 3, Fig. 22, paragraph 81, one display provides information from sensor assembly 14, paragraph 84, LEDs provide information regarding status of the device)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have modified Kin to include the control system to configured to convey information to a user as taught by Adams in order to provide a heads up display for a user to indicate a status of the mask. (Paragraph 58, paragraph 70, a breathing mask can include a HUD assembly 24 to provide a wearer with a display indicating parameters and conditions associated with the mask)
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Adams teaches the system of claim 1, and Adams further teaches wherein the control system is operable to detect battery life(paragraph 85, battery status level) and, in response, to control the illumination source to provide an alert indicative of the remaining battery life of the system. (paragraph 85, LED 862 may display a battery level of the HUD assembly has fallen below a threshold value)
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Adams teaches the system of claim 1, and Adams further teaches wherein the illumination source is embedded in the air delivery mask. (See Figs. 23-25, LEDS are located in shrouds 970, paragraph 88, one or more windows 916 can include a shroud portion 970, Figs. 29-30 show detailed view of the LED 852 embedded in the mask)
Therefore, the combination of Kim with Adams teaches the illumination source is embedded in the air delivery mask.
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Adams teaches the system of claim 1, and Adams further teaches wherein the illumination source is located at a forward portion of the air delivery mask. (See Fig. 23, LEDs are in unit 740 which is located at the forward portion of the mask)
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Adams teaches the system of claim 6, and Adams further teaches wherein the illumination source is centered around the middle of the length of the air delivery mask. (Figs. 23 and 24, Adams teaches illumination sources in 740 and 742 which are centered around the middle of the mask)
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Adams teaches the system of claim 1, and Adams further teaches wherein the illumination source extends along or near to an edge of the air delivery mask. (Figs. 23-25, LEDS 850, 852, 854, 856, 860, 862, paragraphs 83, 84, Fig. 23, Fig. 25 LEDS are located on element 24,along a longitudinal edge of them mask, edge created at bottom of shield opening)
Regarding claim 9, Kim in view of Adams teaches the system of claim 1, and Adams further teaches wherein the illumination source is directional and is oriented to target the air delivery region. (paragraph 88, directs light into the view of the user which is in the air delivery region. See Fig. 23 where the lights are directed towards the face of the user)
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Adams teaches the system of claim 9 and Adams further teaches wherein the illumination source defines one or more light direction axes (XI) which are aligned with the air delivery region. (Paragraph 88, one or more may include light pipes 914, Figs. 29-30, the light pipes can be used to direct light into the view of the user)
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Adams teaches the system of claim 1, and Adams further teaches wherein the illumination source comprises a light guide, (paragraph 88, light pipe 914) to carry light within it and direct light to the air delivery region. (paragraph 88, can be used to direct light into the view of the user, see Fig. 23 which shows shrouds 970 which direct light towards the face of the user)
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Adams teaches the system of claim 11, and Adams further teaches wherein the illumination source comprises one or more light emitting devices (LEDS shown in fig. 25) located in or near the wearable support (The examiner considers since the light emitting devices are located near the face mask, the light emitting devices are near the wearable support), and that are optically coupled to the light guide. (Figs. 29-30, paragraph 88, LEDS light is directed through the light pipes)
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Adams teaches the system of claim 1, and Kim further teaches
comprising an audio system (page 4 of the translation, “a pair of earplugs 10 may further include a voice output unit 80 including a speaker) comprising at least one earpiece supported by the wearable support. (Fig. 2: earpieces 11, 13, supported by headband 20, page 3 of the translation: “the earplug connection unit 20 is a band shape connecting a pair of earplugs 10 and is worn on the user’s head”)
Regarding claim 14, Kim in view of Adams teaches the system of claim 13, and Kim further teaches wherein the audio system comprising a pair of earpieces (Fig. 2: ear pieces 11, 13) wherein the wearable support extends between and supports each of the pair of earpieces. (Fig. 2: wearable support 20 extends between the earpieces)
Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Adams teaches the system of claim 14 and Kim further teaches wherein the air delivery mask extends between the pair of earpieces. (See Figs. 1, 2: the face mask, 70, extends between earpieces, page 2 of the translation “mask 70 is connected to a pair of earplugs 10 at both ends”)
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Adams, and further in view of Szasz et al (US 2019/0358473), hereinafter Szasz.
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Adams teaches the system of claim 1, and Adams further teaches wherein the system provides status updates on the device (paragraph 84) but does not specifically state the sensing system is operable to sense air quality, and wherein the control system is operable to provide an alert to the user in response to the sensing system that is indicative of the sensed air quality.
However, Szasz teaches a face mask for filtering air and monitoring system (Abstract) the sensing system is operable to sense air quality, and wherein the control system is operable to provide an alert to the user in response to the sensing system that is indicative of the sensed air quality. (paragraph 112, when the air pollution reaches a level indicating poor air quality the indicator light will flash red)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have modified Kim in view of Adams to include the air quality alert to notify a user when the air quality is poor. (paragraph 112)
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Adams teaches the system of claim 1, and Adams further teaches wherein the system provides status updates on the device (paragraph 84) but does not specifically state wherein the sensing system if operable to detect remaining filter life, and wherein the control system is configured to provide an alert to the user in response to the sensing system, indicative of the remaining filter life of the system.
However, Szasz teaches a face mask for filtering air and monitoring system (Abstract) the sensing system if operable to detect remaining filter life, (paragraph 103, filter life modules receives and stores data about the filter) and wherein the control system is configured to provide an alert to the user in response to the sensing system, indicative of the remaining filter life of the system. (paragraph 105, the filter life module will display the life of the filter, the filter life module will prompt the user to replace filter)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim in view of Adams to include the filter life module alert in order to notify a user when a filter replacement is necessary. (Paragraph 112)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of copending Application No. 18/267,361 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant claims are found in the co-pending application.
Regarding claim 1, App ‘361 teaches a wearable air purification system (Claim 1) comprising:
a wearable support configured to be supported on or around a head region of a user (Claim 1);
an air delivery mask connected to the wearable support which is shaped to bound an air delivery region and to deliver a flow of air to the air delivery region (Claim 1);
an illumination source configured to illuminate at least a portion of the air delivery mask (Claim 1); and
a control system configured to control the illumination source so as to convey information to a user in response to data received by the control system.(Claim 13)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/267,400 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant claims are found in the copending application.
Regarding claim 1, App ‘400 teaches a wearable air purification system (Claim 1) comprising:
a wearable support configured to be supported on or around a head region of a user (Claim 1);
an air delivery mask connected to the wearable support which is shaped to bound an air delivery region and to deliver a flow of air to the air delivery region (Claim 1);
an illumination source configured to illuminate at least a portion of the air delivery mask (Claim 1); and
a control system configured to control the illumination source so as to convey information to a user in response to data received by the control system.(Claim 11)
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET M LUARCA whose telephone number is (303)297-4312. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 am - 3:30 pm MT.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/MARGARET M LUARCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785