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 3/2/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 and 4-5 have been amended, claim 2 has been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1 and 3-7 are presently pending in the application.
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 and 5 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 a “herringbone tessellation” however is it not clear if this is a slightly different pattern to the Miura pattern recited in claim 1 or a broader version of the Miura pattern. If they are different then there is a clarity issue since the pattern then changes in claim 3 from claim 1, creating inconsistency.
Claim 5 recites “the disc,” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kern et al. (6,099,293) and Burton et al. (2023/0292823).
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kern and Burton, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Gewiss (4,012,932).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Kern discloses that the plurality of parallelograms are dimensioned such that the filter is folded into a Miura pattern, but is silent regarding 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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kern and Burton, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Bachinski (5,240,479).
Regarding claim 4, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 3-4 that Burton fails to teach the newly claimed angles of the parallelograms and refers to figure 12.
Examiner disagrees because figure 15 of Burton teaches the Miura pattern of parallelograms, wherein angles of the parallelograms appear to having an angle of between 84 degrees and 96 degrees. Although Burton does not explicitly recite an angle of between 84 degrees and 96 degrees, 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.
Applicant further argues on page 4 that Burton fails to teach that the Miura folds are configured to optimize a ratio of surface area of the filter to a volume of the filter.
Examiner disagrees since Burton teaches the same Miura pattern and therefore the filter would necessarily meet the function of optimizing a ratio of surface area of the filter to a volume of the filter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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