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 .
This office action is in response to the claims filed 12/20/23. Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 390 and 306B. 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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the language “coupled to and end of” (line 1-2) is objected to for a typographical error; Examiner suggests amending to read –coupled to an end of--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-6 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 4 recites the limitation "the conduit" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the respiratory therapy device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Fulbrook (11,452,793).
Regarding claim 1, Fulbrook discloses a wearable treatment system (see Fig. 1-4, abstract for example) which includes a user interface configured to be coupled about at least a portion of a face of a user (see Fig. 1-4 and col. 10 ln. 25, user interface 20); and an air treatment module coupled to the user interface and having an air inlet configured to receive ambient air therethrough, a light source positioned distal of the air inlet and configured to emit light to treat at least a portion of the received ambient air, and an air outlet positioned distal of the light source and configured to direct at least a portion of the treated ambient air towards an interior of the user interface (see Fig. 1-2 and col. 10 ln. 21-59 for example, air treatment module 10/30 with air inlet 41, air outlet 71 and light source 50 positioned therebetween to emit UV light to treat ambient air for delivery to the interior of the user interface).
Regarding claim 2, the Fulbrook system is in combination with a respiratory therapy system (see Fig. 4, col. 12 ln. 7-33 which discloses connection with ventilator hose and ventilator), the respiratory therapy system including a conduit and a respiratory therapy device (see Fig. 4 and col. 12 ln. 7-33, conduit being the “ventilator hose”, also shown in Fig. 4, respiratory therapy device being the ventilator, 12 of Fig. 4, see col. 13 ln. 6-38), wherein a first end of the air treatment module configured to be removably coupled to a first end of the conduit and a second end of the module configured to be removably coupled to an inlet of the user interface (see Fig. 1-4, col. 10 ln. 21-59, module 10/30 is able to be attached and removed from conduit/user interface).
Regarding claim 3, the Fulbrook system is in combination with a respiratory therapy system (see Fig. 4, col. 12 ln. 7-33 which discloses connection with ventilator hose and ventilator), the respiratory therapy system including a conduit and a respiratory therapy device (see Fig. 4 and col. 12 ln. 7-33, conduit being the “ventilator hose”, also shown in Fig. 4, respiratory therapy device being the ventilator, 12 of Fig. 4, see col. 13 ln. 6-38), wherein a first end of the module is configured to be removably coupled to a first end of the conduit and a second end of the module removably coupled to an outlet of the respiratory therapy device (see Fig. 4, col. 10 ln. 21-59, module 10/30 is able to be attached and removed from conduit/user interface).
Regarding claim 7, the Fulbrook system’s light source is an ultraviolet light source (see col. 10 ln. 37).
Regarding claim 8, the Fulbrook system is such that the at least a portion of the face that the user interface is coupled to includes (i) a nose, (ii) a mouth, or (iii) both a nose and mouth (see Fig. 2 and abstract for example).
Regarding claim 9, the Fulbrook system’s air treatment module further includes a physical air filter positioned proximal to the air inlet and configured to remove particulates from the ambient air as it passes therethrough (see Fig. 1 and col. 5 ln. 53-56, col. 11 ln. 16-35, inlet filter 46).
Regarding claim 10, the Fulbrook system’s physical air filter is one of (i) a HEPA filter or (ii) a scented air filter configured to exude one or more scents (see col. 5 ln. 53-56, col. 11 ln. 16-35, filter 46 being a HEPA filter).
Regarding claim 12, the Fulbrook system includes a humidifier removably coupled to an end of the air treatment module (see Fig. 4 and col. 13 ln. 6-38).
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.
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) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulbrook in view of Foote et al. (EP 3 378 522) (see attached copy).
Regarding claim 4, the Fulbrook system includes a rechargeable battery (see col. 7 ln. 38-52, col. 11 ln. 36-46, col. 12 ln. 62 through col. 13 ln. 5), but is silent as to including first and second electrically conductive contacts to couple to each other via the conduit; however, Foote teaches a similar system which includes this feature (see Foote Fig. 12e, electrical connector 4112 which mates with electrical connector 5114 of the outlet of the respiratory therapy device, see also Fig. 4, 13, 20-21; para. 0273, 0282). Thus 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 Fulbrook system to include electrical contacts between elements, as taught by Foote, such as the air treatment module and conduit, in order to receive power from the base/respiratory system (see Foote para. 0273, 0282).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Fulbrook system’s battery is a rechargeable battery (see Fulbrook col. 7 ln. 38-52, col. 11 ln. 36-46, col. 12 ln. 62 through col. 13 ln. 5).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Fulbrook system is configured to be charged in response to (i) the first and second electrically conductive contacts being connected and (ii) the therapy device being powered on (see Foote Fig. 12e, electrical connector 4112 which mates with electrical connector 5114 of the outlet of the respiratory therapy device, see also Fig. 4, 13, 20-21; para. 0273, 0282, as applied to the Fulbrook system’s rechargeable battery for the air treatment module).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulbrook in view of Moore et al. (10,905,790).
Regarding claim 11, the Fulbrook system is silent as to the air treatment module including a humidifier; however, Moore discloses a similar air treatment unit including a humidifier (see Moore figure and col. 6 ln. 65 through col. 7 ln. 28; treatment unit 24 including humidifier as disclosed). Thus 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 Fulbrook system’s air treatment module to include a humidifier, as taught by Moore, in order to maintain a comfortable breathing environment (see Moore col. 7 ln. 25-28).
Claim(s) 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulbrook in view of Yu et al. (2017/0361133).
Regarding claim 13, the Fulbrook system is silent as to the air treatment module being configured to add one or more scents to the treated ambient air; however, Yu discloses a similar air treatment unit which includes added scents (see Yu para. 0010, 0174-0175). Thus 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 Fulbrook system’s air treatment module to be configured to release one or more scents, as taught by Yu, in order to introduce pleasurable scents for the user’s benefit (see Yu para. 0175).
Regarding claim 16, the Fulbrook system is silent as to the air treatment module further including a polarized-media electronic component distal the air inlet and configured to generate a polarized electric field to treat at least a portion of the received ambient air; however, Yu teaches a similar air treatment unit which includes a polarized-media electronic component to generate a polarized electric field (see Yu para. 0124). Thus 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 Fulbrook system’s air treatment module to include a polarized-media electronic component to generate a polarized electric field, as taught by Yu, in order to provide additional filtration effect for the incoming air (see Yu para. 0124).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulbrook in view of Masterton et al. (2021/0299394).
Regarding claim 14, the Fulbrook system is silent as to the air treatment module further including an ionizer purification component distal of the air inlet and configured to produce positive and negative ions to treat the receive ambient air via a plasma air purification component (Fulbrook discloses an ionizer component distal the air inlet: see abstract col. 10 ln. 60 through col. 11 ln. 15 for example); however, Masterton discloses a similar air treatment unit which includes a plasma air purification component to provide ionization cleaning of air (see Masterton para. 0231-0232). Thus 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 Fulbrook system to include a plasma air purification component, as taught by Masterton, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and one would expect the modified Fulbrook system to perform equally as well.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulbrook in view of Schuller (2013/0037027).
Regarding claim 15, the Fulbrook system is silent as to the air treatment module further including an activated carbon filter positioned proximal to the air inlet to treat at least a portion of the received ambient air; however, Schuller discloses a similar air treatment unit which includes an activated carbon filter element (see Schuller para. 0031). Thus 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 Fulbrook system’s air treatment module to include an activated carbon filter, as taught by Schuller, in order to provide an additional modality of air filtration (see Schuller para. 0031).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulbrook in view of Epperson (2020/0297891).
Regarding claim 17, the Fulbrook system is silent as to the air treatment module further including an immobilized cell with a bio-reactive mass positioned distal to the air inlet to treat at least a portion of the received ambient air; however, Epperson discloses a similar air treatment unit which includes an immobilized cell with bio-reactive mass for filtration (see Epperson para. 0054). Thus 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 Fulbrook system’s air treatment module to include an immobilized cell filtration technology, as taught by Epperson, in order to provide an additional modality of air filtration (see Epperson para. 0054).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulbrook in view of Kyung et al. (2018/0256926) and Adams (2022/0054867).
Regarding claim 18, the Fulbrook system is silent as to including a control system with one or more processors configured to execute machine-readable instructions from a memory device to determine a first air quality index (AQI) value corresponding to received ambient air into the treatment module, determine a second AQI value corresponding to the treated ambient air, comparing the first and second values and providing an indication to the user regarding improvements to the AQI value; however, Kyung discloses a user interface/air treatment device which includes internal and external air quality sensors to detection improvement/level of air treatment performed (see Kyung para. 0009-0010, data processing part being a processor, para. 0136) and Adams discloses a user interface/air treatment device including memory with executable CRM instructions which utilizes air quality index (see Adams abstract, para. 0007-0012, 0268-0273). Thus 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 Fulbrook system to include necessary control components such as processors and memory, and to compare upstream and downstream air quality index values to provide the user with an indication of the performance of the air treatment module, as taught by Kyung and Adams, in order to provide the user with notification of the operation of the system (Kyung para. 0009-0010, 0136; Adams abstract, para. 0007-0012, 0268-0273).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulbrook, Kyung, and Adams as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of McGinnis et al. (2008/0216835).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Fulbrook system is silent as to the AQI value being correlated with a quality of sleep metric experienced by the user during a sleep session and incorporated into a sleep score assigned to the sleep session; however, McGinnis discloses a similar system which includes this feature (see McGinnis para. 0027, 0031, and 0041). Thus 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 Fulbrook system to incorporate the AQI index into a quality of sleep metric for a sleep session, as taught by McGinnis, as this is a well-known procedure for a user and would have been obvious to apply such a parameter (AQI index value) to a user during a sleep session (McGinnis para. 0027, 0031, and 0041).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Fulbrook system, as modified above in view of McGinnis, discloses monitoring breathing performance of the user during the sleep session and identifying the performance that indicates a side effect of a medical condition and the severity of the condition to provide an updated notification to the user of such in regards to the improved AQI value (see Kyung para. 0009-0010, data processing part being a processor, para. 0136; Adams abstract, para. 0007-0012, 0268-0273; McGinnis para. 0027, 0031, and 0041).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhao (2022/0395605), Hebrank et al. (2007/0163588), Hirtz et al. (3,139,885), and Ricci (5,165,395) disclose wearable treatment systems including a user interface and air treatment module; Arigue et al. (2021/0228920) discloses comparing air quality based sensors located upstream and downstream from an air treatment element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W STUART whose telephone number is (571)270-7490. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/COLIN W STUART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights