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
Claims 29-30, 39 and 41 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/09/2026.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding lack of unity, the examiner notes that the lack of unity was done properly and with a two step analysis as argued by applicant on page 10 paragraph 1 of applicant’s response. As per MPEP 1850, part 2: An international application should relate to only one invention or, if there is more than one invention, the inclusion of those inventions in one international application is only permitted if all inventions are so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (PCT Rule 13.1 ). With respect to a group of inventions claimed in an international application, unity of invention exists only when there is a technical relationship among the claimed inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. There is no requirement to compare pairs of independent claims for a lack of unity requirement as presented by applicant. Rather, as previously set forth in the lack of unity requirement, all independent claims presented on 6/16/2023 share a technical feature and further as the examiner previously noted this shared technical feature is not special as the prior art of Foote discloses the shared technical feature.
Foote (US 2014/0261427 A1)
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 assuming selectively the closed state and the open state depending on the at least one information signal [0099] [0106]-[0107] [0120]-[0123].
Therefore the lack of unity requirement is maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the locking mechanism of claim 24 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Interpretation
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: “locking mechanism” in claim 24.
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.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 5 should read “a result” rather than “the result”.
Claim 6, line 7 should read “a result” rather than “the result”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 7-16 and 24 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 3 recites “the local requirement” in line 3. This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 7-16 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 3.
Claim 6 recites “the local requirement” in line 3. This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6 recites “the positive local requirement” in line 9. This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 8 recites “the positive local requirement” in line 3. This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites “the positive local requirement” in line 2. This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites “the negative local requirement” in line 8. This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 11, it is unclear how the exclusion list of premises relates to the sent control signal.
Claim 12 as a whole needs to be re-written, as it is unclear. “responsive to the identifier which the send control signal controls the actuator” is unclear and the examiner is unsure how this links to the previously recited restriction list of radio devices. Similarly, the clause explaining a restriction list of premises is unclear and should be reworded.
Claim 15 is unclear as it states the at least one information signal is excluded from the assessing when the distance is greater than the predefined threshold. However, the assessing comprises determining whether or not the distance is less than a predefined threshold (see claim 13). Further, the assessing step as per claim 3 is “assessing the received at least one information signal in relation to the local requirement”. Therefore, it is unclear how it can be excluded when the assessing step includes both determining distance and respiratory protection.
Claim 24 recites “the local requirement” in line 3. This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 24 recites limitation “locking mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Page 26 of applicant’s disclosure simply states there is a locking mechanism but there is no discussion of the corresponding structure, material or acts for performing the claimed function of locking. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 assuming selectively the closed state and the open state depending on the at least one information signal [0099] [0106]-[0107] [0120]-[0123].
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee: This Robotic Face Mask Can Automatically Open and Close if There are People Around, hereinafter Lee (provided by applicant).
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 assuming selectively the closed state and the open state depending on the at least one information signal (page 2, paragraph beginning with “However”; opens and closes automatically and therefore there must be a control signal and an actuator as claimed).
Regarding claim 3, Lee further discloses: wherein the method further comprises assessing (via sensors) the received at least one information signal in relation to the local requirement (interpreted as the number of people) for the respiratory protection, wherein and the sent control signal controls the actuator to assume selectively the open state and the closed state depending on the 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 the 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 persons (page 2, paragraph beginning with “However”) and the one or more portable radio devices in the environment of the protective mask.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9-16, 19 and 24 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: KR 20210148526
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.
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