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 .
Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 9/21/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 and 5 have been amended, claims 2-4 have been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1 and 5-7 are presently pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kern et al. (6,099,293), Burton et al. (2023/0292823) Gewiss (4,012,932) and Bachinski (5,240,479).
Regarding claim 1, in fig. 4 Kern discloses a respirator device comprising: a housing comprising a first half 12 and a second half 14, wherein the second half defines one or more slots 20 for air passage; a filter 26 disposed within the housing and configured to remove particulate matter from a fluid medium as it passes through the filter (Col. 1, ll. 8-10), wherein the filter is folded (pleated Col. 3, ll. 30-33), but does not explicitly recite that the filter is folded into a Miura pattern comprising a plurality of parallelograms configured to optimize a ratio of a surface area of the filter to a volume of the filter. However, in fig. 1 and 15 Burton teaches a filter that is folded into a Miura pattern comprising a plurality of parallelograms configured to optimize a ratio of a surface area of the filter to a volume of the filter ([0099][0223] since Burton teaches a Miura pattern the filter will optimize a ratio of a surface area of the filter to a volume of the filter based on its folded shape). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kern’s pleated filter with a Miura pattern, as taught by Burton, for the purpose of providing an alternate filter fold pattern having the predictable results of filtering particulate. Figure 15 of Burton shows a Miura pattern comprising a plurality of parallelograms having an angle of what appears to be between 84 degrees and 96 degrees, however does not explicitly recite an angle of between 84 degrees and 96 degrees. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the modified Kern’s angles with an angle of between 84 degrees and 96 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and it appears that an angle of between 84 degrees and 96 degrees would perform equally as well at providing filtration. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The modified Kern discloses that the plurality of parallelograms are dimensioned such that the filter is folded into a Miura pattern, but does not explicitly recite that the filter is folded into a herringbone tessellation. However, Gewiss teaches a filter that is folded into a herringbone tessellation (abstract, Col. 3, ll. 36-62 Gewiss, fig. 1). 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 modified Kern’s Miura pattern with a herringbone tessellation, as taught by Gewiss, for the purpose of providing an alternate filter fold pattern having the predictable results of filtering particulate. The modified Kern discloses that the filter is disc-shaped (Col. 3, ll. 33-35 Kern), but is silent regarding that the filter has a diameter ranging between 50 millimeters and 60 millimeters. However, in fig. 2-3 Bachinski teaches a diameter of the filter ranging between 50 millimeters and 60 millimeters (Col. 5, ll. 36-39 “less than or equal to about 3.0 inches”). 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 modified Kern’s disc diameter with a diameter ranging between 50 millimeters and 60 millimeters, as taught by Bachinski, for the purpose of providing an alternate filter disc size depending on the particular system having the predictable results of filtering particulates.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Kern is silent regarding that a diameter of the disc comprises 56 millimeters. However, in fig. 2 Bachinski teaches a diameter of the disc comprises 56 millimeters (Col. 5, ll. 36-39 “less than or equal to about 3.0 inches”). 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 modified Kern’s disc diameter with a diameter comprising 56 millimeters, as taught by Bachinski, for the purpose of providing an alternate filter disc size depending on the particular system having the predictable results of filtering particulates.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Kern discloses that the filter is composed of fiberglass, paper (Col. 3, ll. 32 “filter paper” Kern), or cloth.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Kern discloses that the respirator device is an air purifying respirator (Fig. 4 Kern) or a powered air purifying respirator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues on paged 4-5 that the cited references fail to teach that the modified herringbone tessellation pattern as claimed including the angle and diameter as claimed.
Examiner disagrees since figure 15 of Burton shows a Miura pattern comprising a plurality of parallelograms having an angle of what appears to be between 84 degrees and 96 degrees, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the modified Kern’s angles with an angle of between 84 degrees and 96 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and it appears that an angle of between 84 degrees and 96 degrees would perform equally as well at providing filtration. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, in fig. 2-3 Bachinski teaches a diameter of the filter ranging between 50 millimeters and 60 millimeters (Col. 5, ll. 36-39 “less than or equal to about 3.0 inches”). 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 modified Kern’s disc diameter with a diameter ranging between 50 millimeters and 60 millimeters, as taught by Bachinski, for the purpose of providing an alternate filter disc size depending on the particular system having the predictable results of filtering particulates.
Applicant argues on pages 5-6 that the examiner has not substantiated by substantial evidence how the pleated structure 7 of Gewiss could be rearranged into a disc-shaped filter in the claimed diameter. Applicant also noted that Bachinski is silent regarding a herringbone tessellation.
This argument is not taken well since Kern is already applied to teach a pleated filter having a disc shape. Further, Bachinski is applied to teach a diameter of a pleated filter ranging between 50 millimeters and 60 millimeters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pleated disc-shaped filter of Kern with an alternate folding patten and size as taught by the above references, for the purpose of providing an alternately folded filter having the predictable results of providing filtered air to a user. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL T SIPPEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1481. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571) 272-5139. 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.
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights