DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 6/10/2026. As directed by the amendment, no claims have been amended, claims 1-20 have been cancelled, and claims 21-31 have been newly added. Thus, claims 21-31 are presently pending in this application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) 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 fan component”, “a pressure sensor component”, and “a controller component” in claim 21.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 21-23 and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fabian et al (2018/0078798).
Regarding claim 21, Fabian discloses a respiratory protective device (respiratory mask) comprising a fan component (106) (micro fan) (para [0171]), a pressure sensor component (sensors positioned outside and inside the filter measure a pressure difference across the filter) (para [0221]), and a controller component (600) (computer) (para [0149]), the device whose ordinary use discloses the method steps for evaluating a respiratory protective device, retrieving, by the controller component, a plurality of pressure measurement data objects from the pressure sensor component (pressure measurement data object is retrieved during calibration of a new filter (para [0216]), pressure measurement is used to determine a filter resistance (para [0221]), and cleanliness of filters is monitored by logging and tracking flow resistance by pressure monitoring (para [0310])), and a plurality of fan operation data objects from the fan component (inlet fan is run at a predetermined power to perform a calibration process (para [0216]), fan power is used to allow a filter resistance to be determined (para [0221]), and cleanliness of filters is monitored by logging and tracking flow resistance (para [0310])); generating, by the controller component, a performance parameter data object based on the plurality of pressure measurement data objects and the plurality of fan operation data objects (filter resistance and fan power is used to determine a filter resistance (para [0221]), and when sensor data indicates the filter is not performing correctly, the mask will take the appropriate action that the mask or App has been programmed to undertake, such as notifying the user that the filters need changing (para [0310]), wherein the performance parameter data object comprises at least one of a trigger pressure parameter, a trigger percentage parameter, a latency time parameter, or an air supply parameter (pressure sensor data may indicate that the filter is not performing correctly (para [0310]), and when filter resistance passes a threshold, an alert can be issued to prompt cleaning or replacement of the filter material) (para [0221]), determining, by the controller component, a performance criterion data object corresponding to the performance parameter data object (threshold by which a filter resistance increases) (para [0221]); generating, by the controller component, a performance indication data object based on comparing the performance parameter data object with the performance criterion data object (once a filter resistance passes a threshold an alert can be issued, to prompt cleaning or replacement of the filter material) (para [0221]); and repairing or replacing the respiratory protective device based on the performance indication data object (repeated reminders may be issued if the user does not change the filter.) (para [0310]).
Regarding claim 22, Fabian discloses each of the plurality of pressure measurement data objects comprises a pressure measurement parameter associated with the pressure sensor component and a time code parameter correlating to the pressure measurement parameter (the electronics of the mask will log the time of use, and when sensor data indicates that the filter is not performing correctly, the mask will notify the user that the filters need changing (para [0310]).
Regarding claim 23, Fabian discloses each of the plurality of fan operation data objects comprises a fan control parameter associated with the fan component and a time code parameter correlating to the fan control parameter (the electronics of the mask will log the time of use, and when sensor data indicates that the filter is not performing correctly, the mask will notify the user that the filters need changing (para [0310]).
Regarding claim 30, Fabian discloses repairing or replacing the respiratory protective device based on the performance indication data object includes entire replacement of the respiratory protective device (device is configured to provide a notice that the filter needs changing (para [0310]), and whole mask portion may be covered with filter material (para [0120]), and therefore, repairing or replacing the respiratory protective device based on the performance indication data object includes entire replacement of the respiratory protective device).
Regarding claim 31, Fabian discloses repairing or replacing the respiratory protective device based on the performance indication data object includes repairing one or more features of the respiratory protective device (device is configured to provide a notice that the filter requires (para [0021]), and mask portion (102) may include a replaceable filter (202) (para [0120]), and therefore, repairing or replacing the respiratory protective device based on the performance indication data object includes cleaning the inlet filter).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
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.
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) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabian et al as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Keown (2004/0113803).
Regarding claim 24, Fabian discloses the fan control parameter indicates a load of the fan component which is determined by an electrical characteristic of the fan (para [0248]).
Fabian does not disclose the fan control parameter indicates at least one of a voltage value associated with the fan component or at least a current value associated with the fan component.
However, Keown teaches a monitoring device for a filter including a fan component (112) (fluid flow producing device can be a fan) (para [0022]) and a filter condition sensing circuit (120) including a current sensor (124) and a voltage sensor (126) configured to detect a current and voltage provided to the motor (108) of the fan component (112) (paras [0028], [0031]), wherein filter condition sensing circuit (120) is configured to determine a condition of the filter element using the voltage and current value associated with the fan component (112) (para [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Fabian so that the electrical characteristic that determines a load of the fan component is a voltage value or a current value associated with the fan component as taught by Keown, as the use of a voltage and current of a fan component to determine an electrical characteristic of the fan component to determine the condition of a filter element is known in the art, and it appears that the device would perform equally well to determine fan component characteristics to determine a condition of a filter element if the fan control parameter indicates at least one of a voltage value associated with the fan component or at least a current value associated with the fan component. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement for reasons for allowance: The closest prior art of the record, Fabian et al (2018/0078798) discloses the limitations of claim 21. However, neither Fabian or the other prior art of record disclose that, when generating the performance parameter data object, the method further comprises: generating, based on the plurality of pressure measurement data objects, a breathing pattern graph object indicating a plurality of pressure-time data correlations between a plurality of pressure measurement parameters and a plurality of time code parameters; and generating, based on the plurality of fan operation data objects, an air supply graph object indicating a plurality of fan-time data correlations between a plurality of fan control parameters and the plurality of time code parameters as recited in claim 25
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Shah (2006/0058924), Goldberg (2006/0259273), Ahola et al (2013/0197826), Wystrup et al (2020/0030732), Dean-Hendricks et al (2012/0323374), and Parham (2010/0153023) disclose devices to determine the end of service life of a filter using a pressure sensor component and/or a load of a fan component.
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 DOUGLAS Y SUL whose telephone number is (571)270-5260. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am-5:30 pm EST.
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.
/DOUGLAS Y SUL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights