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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for Foreign Priority to Application No. (KR10-2021-0110993) filed on August 23, 2021.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶0001, lines 1-4, recites “This application is a U.S. National Stage Application under 35 U.S.C. §371 of PCT Application No. PCT/KR2022/012240, filed August 17, 2022, which claims priority to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2021-0110993, filed August 23, 2021, whose entire disclosures are hereby incorporated by reference.”
Examiner suggest replacing this paragraph with –This application is a U.S. National Stage Application under 35 U.S.C. §371 of PCT Application No. PCT/KR2022/012240, filed August 17, 2022, which claims priority to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2021-0110993, filed August 23, 2021.—
Examiner notes that the filing date of the PCT is the filing date for the national stage application. Therefore, any amendment that comes in with or after the filing of the national stage application in the US is not part of the original disclosure. Per MPEP 608.01(p)(I)(B) states that to be effective an incorporation by reference statement must be filing at time of filing and cannot be added after an application’s filing date. Since a 371 application’s filing date is the date the PCT was filed, an amendment in the 371 application to add an incorporation by reference is not effective and improper as new matter.
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 1-3 and 16-26 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.
Regarding Clam 1, the claim recites –wherein the information on the predicted life of the filter includes information on the “filter remaining life” and information on the “filter remaining time”—. These two terms appear to overlap or refer to the same concept, which is the remaining usable life of the filter. The claim does not provide a clear distinction between the two terms, making the claim unclear. Therefore, one of the ordinary skill in the art would not be able to gauge the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. For the purpose of the Office Action, Examiner is interpreting that the ‘filter remaining life’ is how much dust is accumulated and the ‘filter remaining time’ is how much time is left.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a system and method satisfying two of the statutory categories; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis. For step 2A, the claim(s) are directed to a method for controlling a mask device. The claims recite an abstract idea in the form of detecting an accumulated dust amount in a filter provided in the mask device by operating the mask device, comparing the detected accumulated dust amount with the dust holding capacity of the filter, and providing replacement notification information of the filter based on a comparison value between the detected accumulated dust amount and the dust holding capacity of the filter.
This represents a mental processes because it can equivalently be done by a person simply observing the output of a signal on a user and the readings from the mask device, detecting an accumulated dust amount in a filter provided in the mask device by operating the mask device, comparing the detected accumulated dust amount with the dust holding capacity of the filter are actions that a person could do purely in the mind. If a claim recites a limitation, which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Using Claim 22, as a representative example that is applicable to claims 23-26, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
A method for controlling a mask device, comprising:
detecting an accumulated dust amount in a filter provided in the mask device by operating the mask device;
comparing the detected accumulated dust amount with the dust holding capacity of the filter;
and providing replacement notification information of the filter based on a comparison value between the detected accumulated dust amount and the dust holding capacity of the filter.
The above bolded limitations recite a detecting an accumulated dust amount in a filter provided in the mask device and comparing the accumulated dust to holding capacity, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The process of detecting an accumulated dust amount and comparing the accumulated dust holding capacity and provide a replacement notification can be carried out in a person’s mind. This is further defining the abstract idea. Furthermore, this is a process known to be capable of being performed by people mentally, and not limited to be carried out via computer for automation. People (patients or doctor or caregivers) are capable of detecting, comparing, and then providing or replacement notification through observations of accumulated dust amount in a filter. This is further defining mental process in the form of observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. This is considered longstanding practice that is the focus of the (patent ineligible) claimed invention and is further defining the abstract idea. The mere nominal recitation of “filter” and “mask device”, does not take the claim out of the group of mental processes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A ) because the additional elements of the claim amount to the use of “mask device “are field of use and/or extra solution activity these are merely being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). For example, “mask device” of high-level of generality shown in (US 9492690 B2; Col. 4 lines 5-17). which is used for extra solution data gathering. Additionally, the use of “filter” are field of use and/or extra solution activity these are merely being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea with high-level of generality shown in US 20180289988 A1; para. 0018, see MPEP 2106.05(f). This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner. These are all considered nothing more than a general link to a technological environment and generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions such as storing data and instructions, transmitting and receiving data between computers. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the independent claim(s) Claim 22 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a computer to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a computer without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea. The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable to the entirety of the claims.
Likewise, the rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above for claim 22 is also applicable to Claims 23-26 .
In regards to Claims 23, the applicant is reciting elements that further limit the claims to include herein the replacement notification information of the filter includes information on the filter remaining life calculated based on the dust holding capacity and the accumulated dust amount of the filter, and information on the filter remaining time. This is further defining the abstract idea identified by the examiner. No new additional elements were introduced in these claims, therefore, the same rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above for claim 22 can be applied to the following claims. Examiner further considers these claim limitations as pre-solution activity because it is collecting the reference data that is used to make the abstract determination and data gathering is indicative of not amounting to significantly more when considered as a whole. See MPEP 2106(g).
In regards to Claim 24, the claim recites a new additional element of “fan motor” which is routine and conditional using as shown in US 20130263640 A1 (para. 0057) and “time measurement portion” shown in US 20070272082 A1 (para. 0052). Further, the fan motor or time measurement portion is not significantly more for the reasons set forth above concerning the mask device as a broad class. For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a fan motor to perform steps that define the abstract idea of the accumulated dust amount is calculated based on the air volume calculated by the rotation speed of the fan motor, the dust collection efficiency of the filter, and the use time of the filter detected by the time measurement portion provided in the mask device. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In regards to Claim 25, the claim recites a new additional element of “communication portion” as limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application because they are being recited at a high-level of generality as shown in US 20170182267 A1 (para. 0148) (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) or US 20120118291 A1 (para. 0010; Examiner notes: that display/visual display elements are used for display and date entry) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the processor is not significantly more for the reasons set forth above concerning the communication portion as a broad class. For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a communication portion to perform steps that define the abstract idea of transmits filter replacement notification information to at least one of a terminal and a mask storage device to display the filter replacement notification information in at least one of the terminal and the mask storage device. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In regards to Claim 26, the claim recites a new additional element of “a filter replacement notification portion” which is routine and conditional using as shown in US 20060147003 A1 (para. 0037). Further, the filter replacement notification portion is not significantly more for the reasons set forth above concerning a filter replacement notification portion as a broad class. For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a filter replacement notification portion to perform steps that define the abstract idea of providing replacement notification information of the filter. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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, 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 16-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok (KR 20180092363 A), in view of Awiszus et al. (US 20190175411 A1), hereafter as Awiszus.
Regarding Claim 1, Mok disclose a mask device (Fig. 1-7) comprising:
a mask cover (Fig. 1; at least the outside cover of 100) having an air suction opening (Fig 4. 101-103) and on which a filter (Fig. 6; 300) for filtering air introduced into the air suction opening is mounted Fig. 1-2);
a mask body (Fig. 1-2; 10) coupled to a rear side of the mask cover (Fig. 1-2) and having an air discharge opening (Fig. 2; 12) through which the air passing through the filter passes;
a fan module (Fig. 4; 200) composed of a fan and a fan motor (abstract), disposed between the mask body and the mask cover (Examiner notes: the fan and motor are inside 100) , and allowing the air passing through the filter to flow toward the air discharge opening (Figs. 1-4); and
a controller (Fig. 7; 111 or smartphone) configured to control the rotation speed of the fan motor (Examiner notes: this limitation is functional; claim 13; pg. 5 para. 7), predict information about the life of the filter, and provide information about the predicted life of the filter to a user (pg. 8, para. 3-5).
Mok does not disclose specifically wherein the information on the predicted life of the filter includes information on the filter remaining life and information on the filter remaining time.
However, Awiszus teaches controller (PPEMS 6) that is able to predict information about the life of the filter, and provide information about the predicted life of the filter to a user, wherein the information on the predicted life of the filter includes information on the filter remaining life and information on the filter remaining time (Fig. 1, 16; 6; para. 0087-0091; Table 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller of Mok to predict information about the life of the filter, and provide information about the predicted life of the filter to a user, wherein the information on the predicted life of the filter includes information on the filter remaining life and information on the filter remaining time as taught by Awiszus for the purpose of determining when respirator is in need of maintenance or replacement and identify defects or anomalies (para. 0087-0090).
Regarding Claim 2, Modified Mok discloses the mask device of claim 1, further comprising a filter replacement notification (alarms) portion for displaying information on the predicted life of the filter (pg. 8; para. 3-5; Mok).
Regarding Claim 3, Modified Mok discloses the mask device of claim 1, further comprising a time measurement portion for measuring an operating time of the fan motor (Fig. 4; 200; Mok) and a use time of the filter (Fig. 6; 300; Mok) (6; para. 0087-0090; table 2; Awiszus).
Regarding Claim 16, Modified Mok discloses the mask device of claim 1,
wherein the information on the filter (Fig. 6; 300; Mok) remaining life and the information on the filter remaining time are calculated based on the dust holding capacity and the accumulated dust amount of the filter (para. 0087; Awiszus).
Regarding Claim 17, Modified Mok discloses the mask device of claim 16,
wherein the accumulated dust amount is calculated based on an air volume, a dust collection efficiency of the filter, and a use time of the filter (Fig. 1, 16; 6; para. 0087-0091; Table 2; Awiszus).
Regarding Claim 18, Modified Mok discloses the mask device of claim 17,
wherein the air volume is calculated based on the rotation speed of the fan motor (Fig. 1, 16; 6; para. 0087-0091; Table 2; Awiszus).
Regarding Claim 19, Modified Mok discloses the mask device of claim 2, further comprising a communication portion (Fig. 1, 5; 115) for transmitting and receiving information on the life of the filter (pg. 8; para. 3-6; Mok),
wherein the controller (smartphone; Fig. 7) transmits information on the life of the filter (Fig. 6; 300; Mok) to at least one of a terminal (115) and
a mask storage device using the communication portion to display the information on the life of the filter in at least one of the terminal and the mask storage device (Fig. 7; Mok; pg.8; para. 4; claim 13) .
Regarding Claim 20, Modified Mok discloses the mask device of claim 1,
wherein the mask cover (Fig. 1, 3-4; 100) further includes a filter mounting portion defining a space in which the filter (Fig. 6; 300) is mounted and in which the air suction opening (Fig. 3; 101-103) is formed, and wherein a filter cover (Fig. 4; main body 130) having a plurality of air inlets for introducing outside air is mounted on the filter mounting portion (Fig. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 21, Modified Mok discloses the mask device of claim 20,
of wherein the mask body (Fig. 1-2; 10) further includes:
an air duct portion (11) through which the air forcedly flowing by the fan module (Fig. 4; 200) passes by connecting the air suction opening (Fig. 3; 101-103) and the air discharge opening; and an air outlet (105) for passing air discharged toward an external space (Fig. 1-4; 7; Mok).
Regarding Claim 22, Mok discloses a method for controlling a mask device, comprising:
and providing replacement notification information of the filter based on a comparison value between the detected accumulated dust amount and the dust holding capacity of the filter (Fig. 9; pg. 8 para. 3-6).
Mok does not specifically disclose detecting an accumulated dust amount in a filter provided in the mask device by operating the mask device; comparing the detected accumulated dust amount with the dust holding capacity of the filter.
However, Awiszus teaches detecting an accumulated dust amount in a filter provided in the mask device by operating the mask device; comparing the detected accumulated dust amount with the dust holding capacity of the filter (Examiner notes: Awiszus teaches that t6 is used to detect usage statistics with many different parameters of the different components; para. 0087-0091; Fig. 1; 16; Table 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Mok to include the steps detecting an accumulated dust amount in a filter provided in the mask device by operating the mask device; comparing the detected accumulated dust amount with the dust holding capacity of the filter as taught by Awiszus for the purpose of determining when respirator is in need of maintenance or replacement and identify defects or anomalies (para. 0087-0090).
Regarding Claim 23, Modified Mok discloses the method controlling a mask device of claim 22, wherein the replacement notification information of the filter includes information on the filter remaining life calculated based on the dust holding capacity and the accumulated dust amount of the filter, and information on the filter remaining time (Fig 1, 16; 6; para. 0078-0091; Table 2; Awiszus).
Regarding Claim 24, Modified Mok discloses the method controlling a mask device of claim 23,
wherein the accumulated dust amount is calculated based on the air volume calculated by the rotation speed of the fan motor, the dust collection efficiency of the filter, and the use time of the filter detected by the time measurement portion provided in the mask device (Fig. 1, 16; 6; para. 0087-0091; Table 2).
Regarding Claim 25, Modified Mok discloses the method controlling a mask device of claim 22,
further comprising a communication portion (Fig. 1, 5; 115) for transmitting and receiving replacement notification information of the filter (pg. 8; para. 3-6; Mok),
wherein the controller (smartphone; Fig. 7) transmits filter replacement notification information (Fig. 6; 300; Mok) to at least one of a terminal (115) and
a mask storage device to display the filter replacement notification information in at least one of the terminal and the mask storage device. (Fig. 7; Mok; pg.8; para. 4; claim 13).
Regarding Claim 26, Modified Mok discloses the method controlling a mask device of claim 22, further comprising a filter replacement notification portion for providing replacement notification information of the filter (Fig. 7; pg. 8 para. 3-7; Mok).
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. Other prior art of particular note include: Kim et al. (US-20200206545-A1; Figs. 1-4) and You (KR 20210128533 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAAP A ELLABIB whose telephone number is (571)272-5879. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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.
/MAAP ELLABIB/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785