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:
Reference character “98” is not found in the specification (Fig 5).
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:
A period should be added after “acid” to correct the grammatical error (Page 14, Line 18).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 16, 17, and 20-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “guide light” should be changed to –guide the light—for consistency (Claim 2, Line 2).
The phrase “direction of light” should be changed to –direction of the light—for consistency (Claim 3, Line 3).
The phrase “light piping means” should be changed to –light piping—for consistency (Claim 4, Line 2).
The phrase “emit light” should be changed to –emit the light—for consistency (Claim 6, Line 2).
The phrase “emit light” should be changed to –emit the light—for consistency (Claim 7, Line 2).
The phrase “wherein light” should be changed to –wherein the light—for consistency (Claim 8, Line 3).
The phrase “wherein a part of the light guide from which light, from the at least one light source, is emitted” should be changed to –wherein a part of the light guide, from which the light from the at least one light source is emitted,-- to correct the grammatical error (Claim 10, Lines 2-3).
The phrase “light” should be changed to –the light—for consistency (Claim 16, Line 2).
The phrase “the plastic material comprises one or more of acrylic, polycarbonate or polypropylene, or comprises use of polylactic acid” should be changed to –the plastic material comprises one or more of acrylic, polycarbonate, polypropylene, or polylactic acid—since polylactic acid is a plastic material and the phrase “use of” is redundant (Claim 17, Lines 2-4).
The phrase “emitting light” should be changed to –emitting the light—for consistency (Claim 20, Line 2).
The phrase “emits light, and an off state, in which the light source does not emit light” should be changed to –emits the light, and an off state, in which the light source does not emit the light—for consistency (Claim 21, Line 4).
The phrase “a user” should be changed to –the user—for consistency (Claim 22, Line 7).
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
A light guide in Claim 1. The corresponding structure is light pipe, light lens, or clear tubes formed from plastic material (Page 14, middle and bottom paragraphs).
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 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.
Claim 22 is 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 22 states “comprise a filter assembly, a motor-driven impeller and at least one light source” (Lines 11-12). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if these components are the same as the components mentioned earlier in the claim. It appears the applicant was trying to say that they’re the same components and that this claim limitation is redundant. However, the use of “comprise” creates confusion regarding how many filter assemblies, impellers, and light sources are there. It is also unclear if the second filter assembly, impeller, and light source happen to comprise additional components within them. Therefore, the number of filter assemblies, impellers, and light sources being claimed cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as only two filter assemblies, two impellers, and two light sources are positively claimed, one filter assembly, one impeller, and at least one light source for each ear assembly.
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 1-8, 10-16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mundy et al. (WO 2020/021233 A1) in view of Eromaki et al. (WO 2022/037757 A1), Keene et al. (US 2021/0298391 A1), and Reese (US 2014/0360496 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mundy discloses a head wearable air purifier (apparatus of Fig 1a; head wearable air purifier, Abstract), comprising: a filter assembly (1107, Fig 4; filter assembly, Page 11, middle paragraph; 1107 comprises a filter seat 1135 supporting one or more filter elements 1136 and 1137, Page 22, Lines 30-37); a motor-driven impeller (1109, Fig 4; 1109 driven by motor 1110, Fig 4) for creating an airflow through the filter assembly to obtain a filtered airflow downstream of the filter assembly (1109 creates airflow through 1107 and motor 110 drives 1109, air outlet 1104 downstream from filter assembly 1107, Page 11, middle paragraph).
Mundy fails to disclose at least one light source for emitting light in a far UVC portion of the electromagnetic spectrum; and, a light guide arranged to guide light emitted from the at least one light source to illuminate at least part of an upstream surface of the filter assembly for the decontamination thereof.
However, Eromaki, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a headset device (Abstract) including at least one light source (101e, Fig 8) for emitting light in a UV portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (headset device comprise UV-LEDs 101e configured to shine UV radiation onto airflow, Page 12, Lines 5-17) to eliminate bacteria or the like (Page 12, Lines 5-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount UV-LEDs in the hollow structure/nozzle 1300 (Mundy: Fig 1a) of device, as taught by Eromaki, to eliminate bacteria or the like (Eromaki: Page 12, Lines 5-17). This addition would further sterilize the air and prevents bacteria from reaching the user.
Mundy-Eromaki combination fails to teach emitting light in a far UVC portion of the electromagnetic spectrum; and, a light guide arranged to guide light emitted from the at least one light source to illuminate at least part of an upstream surface of the filter assembly for the decontamination thereof.
However, Keene, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a self-sterilizing facemask (Abstract) including emitting light in a far UVC portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (several or arrays of light sources such as Light Emitting Diodes (LED's), manufactured or attenuated to emit wavelengths in the far UV-C range, paragraph 0015) since the UV-C range is known to kill bacteria, viral and fungal pathogens without having dangerous side effects like damage to eyes and skin (paragraph 0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UV LEDs to be UVC LEDs, as taught by Keene, since the UV-C range is known to kill bacteria, viral and fungal pathogens without having dangerous side effects like damage to eyes and skin (Keene: paragraph 0010). The UVC LEDs perform the same functions as the UV LEDs with the added benefit of not harming the user.
Mundy-Eromaki-Keene combination fails to teach a light guide arranged to guide light emitted from the at least one light source to illuminate at least part of an upstream surface of the filter assembly for the decontamination thereof.
However, Reese, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a portable device providing filtered air (Abstract) including a light guide (80, Fig 15) arranged to guide light emitted (80 providing UV light to the filtered air exiting from the air outlet, UV light is directed such that it is generally parallel to the filter 32, so that the UV light is directed across the filter 32, paragraph 0052) from the at least one light source (420, Fig 4) to illuminate at least part of a downstream surface of the filter assembly for the decontamination thereof (UV light is directed such that it is generally parallel to the filter 32, so that the UV light is directed across the filter 32, paragraph 0052; contemplated that the light guide 80 substantially spans the entire width of the panel 34 that coextends with the filter 34, so as to provide coverage of most or all of the air exiting from the filter 32, paragraph 0053) to direct the UV light towards the filter and avoid directing the UV light outwardly (paragraph 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a light guide connected to the UVC LEDs to redirect and focus UVC light onto the filter assembly, as taught by Reese, to direct the UV light towards the filter and avoid directing the UV light outwardly (Reese: paragraph 0052). This improvement would help focus and control the UVC light to be at a particular spot on the device, the filter, instead of requiring multiple UVC LEDs throughout the entire device. Based on Reese, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize light guides to redirect UV light to particular portions of the device that require sterilization.
Though Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination does not explicitly teach using the light guide to illuminate at least part of an upstream surface of the filter assembly, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to relocate the light guide to be on an upstream surface of the filter assembly (relocate the light guide to be positioned before the air is filtered through the filter assembly) since it is a mere rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04, section VI, subsection C. This rearrangement would obviously be expected since doing so would not change the operation of the device. The air traveling through the device would obviously be filtered and sterilized before reaching the user and the order at which this occurs does not affect the operation of the device. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of rearranging the light guide to be along any position of the airflow path as the light guide would still provide the same sterilization effect.
Regarding Claim 2, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination teaches the light guide comprises light piping arranged to guide light emitted from the at least one light source through the light piping to the upstream surface of the filter assembly (Reese: light guide 80 can be a hollow mirrored channel, for example, or can be a solid thin material capable of carrying UV light, the light guide 80 can be composed of optical fiber materials bundled so as to form a sheet-like body, and the materials thereof are selected from those suitable for transmitting UV light, paragraph 0053).
Regarding Claim 3, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination teaches the light piping comprises at least one corner arranged to cause a change of direction of light being guided through the light piping (Reese: light guide 80 depicted to be at a corner of 34, which would change the direction of light, Fig 15; the interior shape and housing of Mundy would obviously have corners that would require the light guide of Reese to be at a corner and thus change the direction of light towards to the filter assembly of Mundy).
Regarding Claim 4, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination teaches at least part of the light piping is defined by at least one structural component of the head wearable air purifier (Reese: light guide 80 depicted to be at a corner of 34, which would change the direction of light, Fig 15; the interior shape and housing of Mundy would obviously define the shape at which the light guide of Reese would need to travel along to reach the filter assembly of Mundy).
Regarding Claim 5, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination teaches the at least one structural component comprises a filter frame (Mundy: 1135, Fig 14a) that is arranged to support the filter assembly (Mundy: 1107 comprises a filter seat 1135 supporting one or more filter elements 1136 and 1137, Page 22, Lines 30-37; Reese: light guide 80 depicted to be at a corner of 34, which would change the direction of light, Fig 15; it is obvious that the filter seat of Mundy would define the light guide of Reese due to its physical presence and shape near the filter assembly of Mundy).
Regarding Claim 6, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination teaches the light guide is arranged to emit light in a direction substantially parallel to the upstream surface of the filter assembly (Reese: UV light is directed such that it is generally parallel to the filter 32, so that the UV light is directed across the filter 32, paragraph 0052).
Regarding Claim 7, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination teaches the light guide is arranged to emit light in a plurality of directions along the upstream surface of the filter assembly (Reese: UV light is directed such that it is generally parallel to the filter 32, so that the UV light is directed across the filter 32, paragraph 0052; light being outputted by the light guide 80 would obviously scatter in multiple directions across the surface of the filter assembly of Mundy due to the behavior of light bouncing off of surfaces). It is noted that Applicant has not detailed what specific directions are involved, if the light guide has the ability to change position or direction, or if there is a component that is causing the light to be emitted in a plurality of directions.
Regarding Claim 8, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination teaches a filter shroud (Mundy: 1140, Fig 4) for covering the upstream surface of the filter assembly (Mundy: the outer cover 1140 protects the filter elements 1136, 1137 from damage, for example during transit, and also provides a visually appealing outer surface covering the filter assembly 1107, which is in keeping with the overall appearance of the purifier 1000, Page 24, Lines 29-31), wherein light from the at least one light source illuminates a gap defined between the filter shroud and the upstream surface of the filter assembly (Mundy: there is a gap between 1140 and 1107 which is shown to be under air inlet 1103, Fig 4; Reese: UV light is directed such that it is generally parallel to the filter 32, so that the UV light is directed across the filter 32, the UV light does not shine outwardly of the device, and the UV light passing across the filter 32 is captured by the opposing portion of the housing 10 that exists opposite to the wall 34, UV light source is safely located within the housing 10 where it is not subject to external impacts or breakage, paragraph 0052; 80 is depicted to be inside of 34, Fig 15; the gap of Mundy would obviously have the light guide of Reese since the light guide would need to be provided on the upstream surface of the filter assembly and Reese teaches that the light source and light guide are within the housing).
Regarding Claim 10, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination teaches a part of the light guide from which light, from the at least one light source, is emitted is positioned between the filter shroud and the upstream surface of the filter assembly (Mundy: there is a gap between 1140 and 1107 which is shown to be under air inlet 1103, Fig 4; Reese: UV light is directed such that it is generally parallel to the filter 32, so that the UV light is directed across the filter 32, the UV light does not shine outwardly of the device, and the UV light passing across the filter 32 is captured by the opposing portion of the housing 10 that exists opposite to the wall 34, UV light source is safely located within the housing 10 where it is not subject to external impacts or breakage, paragraph 0052; 80 is depicted to be inside of 34, Fig 15; the gap of Mundy would obviously have the light guide of Reese since the light guide would need to be provided on the upstream surface of the filter assembly and Reese teaches that the light source and light guide are within the housing).
Regarding Claim 11, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination teaches the filter shroud comprises a lip portion for fixing the filter shroud in place to cover the upstream surface of the filter assembly (Mundy: an outer cover 1140 releasably attached to the speaker chassis 1111 so as to cover the filter assembly 1107, the outer cover 1140 could be attached to the speaker chassis 1111 using cooperating screw threads provided on the outer cover 1140 and the speaker chassis 1111 and/or using some catch mechanism, Page 24, Lines 25-36; the screw threads on 1140 would be considered a lip portion since the threads act as lips for fixing the cover in place).
Regarding Claim 12, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination does not explicitly teach at least part of the light guide is attached to the filter shroud.
However, Reese teaches that the light guide 80 is attached to the inner surface of 34 (Reese: Fig 15) and the UV light source being safely located within the housing 10 where it is not subject to external impacts or breakage (Reese: paragraph 0052). Based on Reese, the light guide 80 is positioned within the inner surface of the housing to ensure the light source is protected from external impacts or breakage. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would obviously relocate part of the light guide 80 of Reese to be attached to the inner side of filter shroud or outer cover 1140 of Mundy since it would achieve the same effect of introducing the UVC light on the upstream surface of the filter assembly 1107 of Mundy and would not change the operation of the device. Furthermore, this would obviously be a mere rearrangement of parts and design choice. See MPEP 2144.04, section VI, subsection C. It is obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the structural space within the device itself to determine where to position the light guide between the outer cover and filter assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the light guide to be attached to the inner surface of the outer cover since doing so would not change the operation of the device, would be a mere rearrangement of parts, and would be a design choice. Applicant has not provided any particular details regarding any significant, unexpected benefits of attaching the light guide to the filter shroud.
Regarding Claim 13, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination teaches the at least one light source is arranged at a side of the filter assembly opposite to the upstream surface of the filter assembly (Eromaki: UV LEDs 101e shown to be on the opposite side of 103 within 101, Fig 8; UVC LEDs would be arranged within hollow structure/nozzle 1300 of Mundy).
Regarding Claim 14, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination teaches the at least one light source is attached to, or disposed adjacent to, at least one structural component of the head wearable air purifier (Eromaki: UV LEDs 101e shown to be within 101, Fig 8; headset device comprises UV-LEDs 101e configured to shine UV radiation onto airflow through 101, Page 12, Lines 5-17; UVC LEDs would be arranged within hollow structure/nozzle 1300 of Mundy).
Regarding Claim 15, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination teaches the at least one structural component is disposed between the at least one light source and the light guide (Eromaki: UV LEDs 101e shown to be within 101, Fig 8; since the UVC LEDs are arranged within hollow structure/nozzle 1300 of Mundy and the end of light guide 80 of Reese would be within the gap between filter assembly 1107 and outer cover 1140 of Mundy, then parts of the hollow structure/nozzle 1300 of Mundy would be between the UVC LEDs and the end of light guide 80 of Reese).
Regarding Claim 16, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination teaches the at least one structural component is formed from a material that allows light emitted from the at least one light source to pass therethrough (Mundy: the at least a portion of the nozzle 1300 is formed of a transparent or partially transparent material so that the user's mouth is visible through the nozzle 1300, Page 27, Lines 34-36; the UVC light emitted would pass through 1300 due to the transparency of the material).
Regarding Claim 18, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination teaches a filter frame (Mundy: 1135, Fig 14a) that is arranged to support the filter assembly (Mundy: 1107 comprises a filter seat 1135 supporting one or more filter elements 1136 and 1137, Page 22, Lines 30-37). The current Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination does not explicitly teach the at least one light source is attached to, or disposed adjacent to the filter frame.
However, Eromaki further teaches the UV LEDs 101e being arranged all along 101, including some LEDs being close to or disposed adjacent to 103 and 104 (Fig 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have UVC LEDs disposed adjacent to the filter seat of Mundy, as taught by Eromaki, since this would be an expected and obvious position to place the UVC LEDs at and would be an obvious design choice. Repositioning the UVC LEDs to be nearer to the ear pieces or nearer to the filter seat of Mundy would not change the operation of the device. It is noted that Applicant has not provided any particular details regarding any significant, unexpected benefits of having the light source being attached to or disposed adjacent to the filter frame.
Regarding Claim 19, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination teaches the at least one light source comprises one or more LEDs (Eromaki: headset device comprises UV-LEDs 101e configured to shine UV radiation onto airflow through 101, Page 12, Lines 5-17; Keene: several or arrays of light sources such as Light Emitting Diodes (LED's), manufactured or attenuated to emit wavelengths in the far UV-C range, paragraph 0015).
Regarding Claim 20, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination teaches the at least one light source is configured for emitting light with a wavelength of about 222 nm (Keene: several or arrays of light sources such as Light Emitting Diodes (LED's), manufactured or attenuated to emit wavelengths in the far UV-C range (currently defined as 207-222 nm), paragraph 0015).
Regarding Claim 21, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 1. Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination also teaches one or more physical user control devices that are provided on the purifier 1000 and/or that are accessible to the user (Mundy: Page 13, Lines 11-12).
The current Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination fails to teach a switch for switching the at least one light source selectively between an on state, in which the light source emits light, and an off state, in which the light source does not emit light.
However, Keene further teaches a switch for switching the at least one light source selectively between an on state, in which the light source emits light, and an off state, in which the light source does not emit light (respirator 100 comprises power source including a battery and circuit within a module 110 including light sources manufactured or attenuated to emit far UV-C light, and having an on-off switch (sealed push button switch) 111, paragraph 0036) since it is known to turn the UVC lights on and off via a switch.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to have a physical switch to turn the UVC LEDs on and off, as taught by Keene, since it is known to turn the UVC lights on and off via a switch. Adding a switch would provide better control over when the UVC LEDs are activated or not. This would help to conserve power, particularly when the device is not in use.
Regarding Claim 22, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination teaches an ear assembly (Mundy: 1100a and half of 1300 closest to 1100a, Fig 1a) arranged to be worn over an ear of a user (Mundy: a first speaker assembly arranged to be worn over a first ear of a user, Page 2, Lines 34-37), wherein the ear assembly comprises the filter assembly, the motor-driven impeller and the at least one light source (Mundy: 1100 shown to contain 1107, 1109, 1110, Fig 4; Eromaki: headset device comprise UV-LEDs 101e configured to shine UV radiation onto airflow, Page 12, Lines 5-17; UV LEDs would be found inside of 1300 of Mundy); wherein the ear assembly comprises a first ear assembly (Mundy: 1100a and half of 1300 closest to 1100a, Fig 1a; 1100a is the first assembly) arranged to be worn over a first ear of the user (Mundy: a first speaker assembly arranged to be worn over a first ear of a user, Page 2, Lines 34-37), and the head wearable air purifier comprises a second ear assembly (Mundy: 1100b and half of 1300 closest to 1100b, Fig 1a; 1100b is the second assembly) arranged to be worn over a second ear of a user (Mundy: a second speaker assembly arranged to be worn over a second ear of the user, Page 2, Lines 34-37), wherein the second ear assembly comprises a second filter assembly, a second motor-driven impeller and at least one second light source (Mundy: 1100 shown to contain 1107, 1109, 1110, Fig 4; Eromaki: headset device comprise UV-LEDs 101e configured to shine UV radiation onto airflow, Page 12, Lines 5-17; UV LEDs would be found inside of 1300 of Mundy).
Regarding Claim 23, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination teaches the head wearable air purifier comprises a nozzle (Mundy: 1300, Fig 1a) for receiving the filtered air downstream of the filter assembly, and for directing the filtered air towards a user's mouth (Mundy: hollow nozzle 1300 is then attached to both the first speaker assembly 1100a and the second speaker assembly 1100b and is arranged so that it can receive both the filtered airflow generated by the first speaker assembly 1100a and the filtered airflow generated by the second speaker assembly 1100b, Page 26, Lines 21-26; the nozzle 1300 will extend around a face of the user, from one side to the other, and in front of a mouth of the user, Page 27, Lines 30-32; collision between the first filtered airflow and the second filtered airflow will cause both airflows to change direction and will result in the formation a combined filtered airflow that is directed out through the apertures formed in the nozzle 1300 that provide the air outlet 1310 and towards the mouth and nose of the user, Page 30, Lines 9-12).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mundy et al. (WO 2020/021233 A1), Eromaki et al. (WO 2022/037757 A1), Keene et al. (US 2021/0298391 A1), and Reese (US 2014/0360496 A1) as applied to Claim 8, and in further view of Zhou et al. (US 2016/0001108 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 8. Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination fails to teach an inner surface of the filter shroud, adjacent to the upstream surface of the filter assembly, comprises a light reflective coating, or is made from a light reflective material.
However, Zhou, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a breathing apparatus (Abstract) including an inner surface of the filter shroud (surface of support layer 42 that forms a wall of the flow chamber may be coated or covered with any suitable UV-reflective material 46, paragraph 0022; surface of outer shell 49 that forms a wall of the flow chamber may be coated or covered with a UV-reflective material 48, paragraph 0023), adjacent to the surface of the filter assembly (32, Fig 4; fabric layer may cover openings 32 to filter air, paragraph 0024), comprises a light reflective coating, or is made from a light reflective material (suitable UV-reflective materials include but are not limited to metals or metal alloys, such as aluminum or palladium; oxides such as SiO2 or Al2O3; metal-oxide hybrids; sulfate coatings; or UV reflective plastics, such as Teflon, reflective coating 46 may be plated, sputtered, or evaporated directly on support layer 42, or the reflective coating may be a foil or a film attached to the surface of support layer 42 that forms the wall of the flow chamber, paragraph 0022) to ensure that the entire chamber is filled with UV radiation and little to no air passes through the chamber without being exposed to UV radiation (paragraph 0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a reflective material to the inner surface of the outer cover of Mundy, as taught by Zhou, to ensure that the entire chamber is filled with UV radiation and little to no air passes through the chamber without being exposed to UV radiation (Zhou: paragraph 0027). This would ensure the UVC light is distributed evenly throughout the entire gap between the outer cover and filter assembly and prevent any air from entering the rest of the device without being exposed to the UVC light.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mundy et al. (WO 2020/021233 A1), Eromaki et al. (WO 2022/037757 A1), Keene et al. (US 2021/0298391 A1), and Reese (US 2014/0360496 A1) as applied to Claim 16, and in further view of VanDerWoude et al. (US 2015/0375019 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 16. Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination also teaches the material comprises a plastic material (Mundy: transparent plastic such as a polyurethane, stiff, transparent plastic such as a polyethylene terephthalate glycol-modified (PETG), the entire nozzle 1300 could be formed from a single transparent or partially transparent material, Page 28, Lines 1-4). Mundy-Eromaki-Keene-Reese combination fails to teach the plastic material comprises one or more of acrylic, polycarbonate or polypropylene, or comprises use of polylactic acid.
However, VanDerWoude, of the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to the problem of transparent material selection, teaches a personal protection system (Abstract) including the plastic material comprises one or more of acrylic and polycarbonate (UV transmission lens 710 is molded or formed from a transparent plastic such as polycarbonate, acrylic or polyethylene terephthalate (PET), paragraph 0117) since it is a known transparent plastic material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace one of the plastic materials to be acrylic or polycarbonate, as taught by VanDerWoude, since it is a known transparent plastic material.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 13-17, and 19-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, and 22-25 of copending Application No. 18/293,979, hereafter ‘979, in view of Reese (US 2014/0360496 A1). Although the claims are not identical, the instant claims would be anticipated and/or made obvious by the cited application and prior art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding Claim 1, ‘979 discloses most of the claimed invention (Claim 1) except for: a light guide arranged to guide light emitted from the at least one light source to illuminate at least part of an upstream surface of the filter assembly for the decontamination thereof.
However, Reese, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a portable device providing filtered air (Abstract) including a light guide (80, Fig 15) arranged to guide light emitted (80 providing UV light to the filtered air exiting from the air outlet, UV light is directed such that it is generally parallel to the filter 32, so that the UV light is directed across the filter 32, paragraph 0052) from the at least one light source (420, Fig 4) to illuminate at least part of a downstream surface of the filter assembly for the decontamination thereof (UV light is directed such that it is generally parallel to the filter 32, so that the UV light is directed across the filter 32, paragraph 0052; contemplated that the light guide 80 substantially spans the entire width of the panel 34 that coextends with the filter 34, so as to provide coverage of most or all of the air exiting from the filter 32, paragraph 0053) to direct the UV light towards the filter and avoid directing the UV light outwardly (paragraph 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a light guide connected to the UVC LEDs to redirect and focus UVC light onto the filter assembly, as taught by Reese, to direct the UV light towards the filter and avoid directing the UV light outwardly (Reese: paragraph 0052). This improvement would help focus and control the UVC light to be at a particular spot on the device, the filter, instead of requiring multiple UVC LEDs throughout the entire device. Based on Reese, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize light guides to redirect UV light to particular portions of the device that require sterilization.
Though ‘979-Reese combination does not explicitly teach using the light guide to illuminate at least part of an upstream surface of the filter assembly, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to relocate the light guide to be on an upstream surface of the filter assembly (relocate the light guide to be positioned before the air is filtered through the filter assembly) since it is a mere rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04, section VI, subsection C. This rearrangement would obviously be expected since doing so would not change the operation of the device. The air traveling through the device would obviously be filtered and sterilized before reaching the user and the order at which this occurs does not affect the operation of the device. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of rearranging the light guide to be along any position of the airflow path as the light guide would still provide the same sterilization effect.
Regarding Claim 2, ‘979-Reese combination teaches all of the claimed invention (Reese: light guide 80 can be a hollow mirrored channel, for example, or can be a solid thin material capable of carrying UV light, the light guide 80 can be composed of optical fiber materials bundled so as to form a sheet-like body, and the materials thereof are selected from those suitable for transmitting UV light, paragraph 0053).
Regarding Claim 3, ‘979-Reese combination teaches all of the claimed invention (Reese: light guide 80 depicted to be at a corner of 34, which would change the direction of light, Fig 15; the interior shape and housing of ‘979 would obviously have corners that would require the light guide of Reese to be at a corner and thus change the direction of light towards to the filter assembly of ‘979).
Regarding Claim 4, ‘979-Reese combination teaches all of the claimed invention (Reese: light guide 80 depicted to be at a corner of 34, which would change the direction of light, Fig 15; the interior shape and housing of ‘979 would obviously define the shape at which the light guide of Reese would need to travel along to reach the filter assembly of ‘979).
Regarding Claim 6, ‘979-Reese combination teaches all of the claimed invention (Reese: UV light is directed such that it is generally parallel to the filter 32, so that the UV light is directed across the filter 32, paragraph 0052).
Regarding Claim 7, ‘979-Reese combination teaches all of the claimed invention (Reese: UV light is directed such that it is generally parallel to the filter 32, so that the UV light is directed across the filter 32, paragraph 0052; light being outputted by the light guide 80 would obviously scatter in multiple directions across the surface of the filter assembly of ‘979 due to the behavior of light bouncing off of surfaces). It is noted that Applicant has not detailed what specific directions are involved, if the light guide has the ability to change position or direction, or if there is a component that is causing the light to be emitted in a plurality of directions.
Regarding Claim 13, ‘979-Reese combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘979: Claim 11).
Regarding Claim 14, ‘979-Reese combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘979: Claim 10).
Regarding Claim 15, ‘979-Reese combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘979: Claim 5; Reese: UV light can be supplied, for example, by UV light from the UV bulb 420, paragraph 0053; light guide 80 shown to go across 34, Fig 15; there obviously needs to be a structural component in between the light guide and light source since it is in the interior of the device like the connection surface).
Regarding Claim 16, ‘979-Reese combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘979: Claim 7).
Regarding Claim 17, ‘979-Reese combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘979: Claim 8).
Regarding Claim 19, ‘979-Reese combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘979: Claim 22).
Regarding Claim 20, ‘979-Reese combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘979: Claim 23).
Regarding Claim 21, ‘979-Reese combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘979: Claim 16).
Regarding Claim 22, ‘979-Reese combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘979: Claim 24).
Regarding Claim 23, ‘979-Reese combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘979: Claim 25).
Claims 1-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of copending Application No. 18/267,741, hereafter ‘741, in view of Keene et al. (US 2021/0298391 A1). Although the claims are not identical, the instant claims would be anticipated and/or made obvious by the cited application and prior art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding Claim 1, ‘741 discloses most of the claimed invention (Claim 1) except for: emitting light in a far UVC portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
However, Keene, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a self-sterilizing facemask (Abstract) including emitting light in a far UVC portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (several or arrays of light sources such as Light Emitting Diodes (LED's), manufactured or attenuated to emit wavelengths in the far UV-C range, paragraph 0015) since the UV-C range is known to kill bacteria, viral and fungal pathogens without having dangerous side effects like damage to eyes and skin (paragraph 0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light source to emit UVC light, as taught by Keene, since the UV-C range is known to kill bacteria, viral and fungal pathogens without having dangerous side effects like damage to eyes and skin (Keene: paragraph 0010).
Regarding Claim 2, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘741: Claim 2).
Regarding Claim 3, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘741: Claim 3).
Regarding Claim 4, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘741: Claim 4).
Regarding Claim 5, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘741: Claim 5).
Regarding Claim 6, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘741: Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 7, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘741: Claim 7).
Regarding Claim 8, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘741: Claim 8).
Regarding Claim 9, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘741: Claim 9).
Regarding Claim 10, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘741: Claim 10).
Regarding Claim 11, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘741: Claim 11).
Regarding Claim 12, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘741: Claim 12).
Regarding Claim 13, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘741: Claim 13).
Regarding Claim 14, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘741: Claim 14).
Regarding Claim 15, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘741: Claim 15).
Regarding Claim 16, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘741: Claim 16).
Regarding Claim 17, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘741: Claim 17).
Regarding Claim 18, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘741: Claim 18).
Regarding Claim 19, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘741: Claim 19).
Regarding Claim 20, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (Keene: several or arrays of light sources such as Light Emitting Diodes (LED's), manufactured or attenuated to emit wavelengths in the far UV-C range (currently defined as 207-222 nm), paragraph 0015).
Regarding Claim 21, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘741: Claim 21).
Regarding Claim 22, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘741: Claim 22).
Regarding Claim 23, ‘741-Keene combination teaches all of the claimed invention (‘741: Claim 23).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN THAI-BINH KHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9:00 am-6:00 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.
/BRIAN T KHONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights