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
Examiner acknowledges the reply filed on 6/18/2026 in which claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11-13 have been amended. Claims 2, 4-5, 14-15, 17-18, 20-48 are cancelled. Claims 49-56 have been added. Currently claims 1, 3, 6-13, 16, 19 and 49-56 are pending in this application. Claims 49-56 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 49-56 directed to an invention that lacks unity with the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Applicant already elected group 1 drawn to a method of controlling an actuator of a protective mask. Claims 49-56 are not drawn to elected group 1 but rather “An apparatus”.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally elected invention (see applicant’s election of group 1: 2/09/2026), this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 49-56 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1, 3, 6-13, 16 and 19 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 1 recites “sending a message that i) indicates that the protective mask is in the closed state and/or ii) requests an unlocking of a lock”. While the examiner acknowledges that breadth is not to be equated with indefiniteness (MPEP 2173.04), this newly added limitation is so broad that the boundaries of the claim are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. First, what is sending the claimed message? Next, where is the lock? As currently recited, the lock can be any lock in any location. An individual who tells someone the mask is closed and/or an individual asking another individual to unlock a door/mailbox after the control signal is sent to the actuator would read on this claim.
Claims 3, 6-13, 16, and 19 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “a positive local requirement” in line 5. It is unclear if this is another positive local requirement as this was already recited in line 2 of the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Foote (US 2014/0261427 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Foote discloses an actuator [0093] configured to assume selectively a closed state and an open state, wherein a respiratory flow resistance of the open state is reduced compared to a respiratory flow resistance of the closed state [0098], and sending, or initiating the sending of a control signal to the actuator of the protective mask for cause the protective mask to assume the closed state for respiratory protection [0099] [0106]-[0107] [0120]-[0123]; and
after sending the control signal to the actuator, sending a message that: i) indicates that the protective mask is in the closed state [0107]-[0108] and/or ii) requests an unlocking of a lock.
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) 1, 3, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee: This Robotic Face Mask Can Automatically Open and Close if There are People Around, hereinafter Lee (provided by applicant) in view of Foote (US 2014/0261427 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses: A method of controlling an actuator of a protective mask configured to assume selectively a closed state for respiratory protection and an open state (page 2, paragraph beginning with “However”), wherein a respiratory flow resistance of the open state is reduced compared to a respiratory flow resistance of the closed state (page 2, paragraph beginning with “However”, the preceding paragraph also provides context for breathing resistance), the method comprising: receiving at least one information signal indicative of an environment of the protective mask (senses people are around as per page 2, paragraph beginning with “However”); and sending, or initiating the sending of, a control signal to the actuator of the protective mask for causing the actuator to cause the protective mask to assume the closed state for respiratory protection (page 2, paragraph beginning with “However”; opens and closes automatically and therefore there must be a control signal and an actuator as claimed).
Lee does not explicitly disclose after sending the control signal to the actuator, sending a message that: i) indicates that the protective mask is in the closed state and/or ii) requests an unlocking of a lock.
However, Foote discloses after sending the control signal to the actuator, sending a message that: i) indicates that the protective mask is in the closed state [0107]-[0108].
It would have been obvious to have modified Lee to include after sending the control signal to the actuator, sending a message that: i) indicates that the protective mask is in the closed state as taught by Foote for the benefit of calibration as discussed in Foote [0107]-[0108].
Regarding claim 3, Lee further discloses: wherein the method further comprises assessing (via sensors) the received at least one information signal in relation to a local requirement (interpreted as the number of people) for the respiratory protection, and the control signal is sent based on a result of the assessing (page 2, paragraph beginning with “However”).
Regarding claim 7, Lee further discloses: wherein the at least one information signal is indicative of one or more persons (page 2, paragraph beginning with “However”), and/or the at least one information signal is indicative of one or more portable radio devices in the environment of the protective mask (the phrase after and/or could be interpreted as unnecessary due to the “or” and has been interpreted as such).
Regarding claim 8, Lee further discloses: wherein the assessing comprises determining whether or not the received at least one information signal implies a positive local requirement for the respiratory protection in the environment based on a number or density of at least one of the one or more persons (page 2, paragraph beginning with “However”) and the one or more portable radio devices in the environment of the protective mask.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2026 have been fully considered. The examiner acknowledges claim amendments made in applicant’s response. Applicant has amended claims to include portions of claim 24, which was indicated as allowable. As currently amended claim 1 is not allowable as set forth above due to prior art rejections and 112b rejections set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: KR 20210148526
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 VICTORIA MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:00pm CT.
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.
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights