DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 11/21/25 is acknowledged.
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 5 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.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “proximate” is a relative term without defined metes and bounds. However, in light of the drawings and scope of the specification “proximate” in “first filter cartridge is disposed at or proximate a first end of a first blower-device engagement surface of the first filter cartridge” is considered to be integrated enough to function as intended.
Regarding claim 11, the use of “on the one hand” and “on the other hand” adds confusion to the claims and are not necessary. It is further unclear if the projection and sliding track are intended to be optional entities individually as 1. projection, 2, sliding track, and 3, projection and sliding track together.
The Examiner recommends breaking each of the conditions into separate dependent claims or the amendment: wherein each of the first filter cartridge and the second filter cartridge or the blower device, comprises at least one projection, at least one sliding track, or at least one projection is configured to engage with at least one sliding track to facilitate the sliding engagement of the first filter cartridge and the second filter cartridge with the blower device.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 18 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hur et al. US Patent 10,888,721.
Regarding claim 1, Hur teaches a respirator system comprising (See Figure 9 and column 3 line 58 – column 4 line 55);
a) A blower device 100 (Figures 1, 7, and 9) with an air inlet 108;
b) A first filter cartridge (106 depicts two identical cartridges) defining a first outlet (106D, Figures 15 and 16, column 3 lines 15-22), wherein the filter 106 slides into one of the two oval tubes (126, Figure 9, column 3 line 49) in the blower device to engage the first outlet with a first portion (130, Figure 9) of the blower device in first installed position (the outlet 106D of the filter is engaged with duct 130 when pressed into opening 126, column 3 line 63); and
b) A second filter cartridge (the second 106 cartridge) defining a first outlet (106D, Figures 15 and 16, column 3 lines 15-22), wherein the second filter 106 slides into the other oval tube (126, Figure 9, column 3 line 49) in the blower device to engage the second outlet with a second portion (130, Figure 9) of the blower device in first installed position (the outlet 106D of the filter is engaged with duct 130 when pressed into opening 126, column 3 line 63). Both outlets of the first and second cartridge filter engage with the blower device’s inlet 108 through duct 130 when assembled.
Regarding claim 2, Hur teaches a bottom tubular portion 128 houses a stopper structure considered as the diaphragm valve member 142 that engages to either open or close the oval tubes 126 from the remaining passages of the respirator system 100. When the cartridge 106 is inserted, it depresses the valve member 142 and opening the cartridge 106 to the duct 130. Hur discloses that there are twin filter cartridge mechanisms, therefore teaches a second stopper disposed on the second side of the housing opposite the first side that is configured to operably engage the second filter cartridge (column 3 lines 53-55).
Regarding claim 4, the outlets 106D of each of the two cartridges engage with duct 130 which is aligns with the inlet simultaneously (Figure 9 where outlets of the first and second cartridge filter engage with the blower device’s inlet 108 through duct 130 when assembled).
Regarding claim 5, the inlet 108 extends to a lateral midpoint at the housing, about where part 130 engages with fan 132. This also engages with the outlet of both the first and second filter cartridge through duct 130 (column 3 lines 47-65).
Regarding claim 8, the housing comprises a sealing beam defined across the inlet as the ring of part 132 (Figure 8) which is configured to engage with the filters when both are in the installed position (column 5 lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 10, the two filters are in contact with each other through duct 130.
Regarding claim 11, the housing comprises oval 126 and diaphragm 142 to engage with the filters. The filters are configured to slide into the ovals 126 and engage with the diaphragm 142 to form a sealing fit with the blowing device (column 3 lines 45-65).
Regarding claim 12 and 13, Hur teaches the cylindrical shape of the two cartridges are complimentary, non-linearly, to the part 126 of the housing for installation of the filters (Figure 7, column 3 line 48).
Regarding claim 14, the respirator is a powered air purifying respirator (column 1 line 36).
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, 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.
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.
Claims 3, 6, 7, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hur et al. US Patent 10,888,721.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Hur teaches that first and second cartridges each comprise mounting grooves (106D, Figure 16, column 3 lines 10-15) that engage with the stopper 142 when inserted into the installed position.
Hur teaches the first and second cartridge insert in the same direction, vertically with respect to the stopper. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would find that a blower device with cartridges arranged in other directions, side to side or angling to a near V-shape for example, would be a mere aesthetic choice in the art provided that the filters can connect to the tubes and outside air.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the inlet 108 defines a sealing surface comprising a first portion angled at a first inlet angle towards the first filter cartridge in the first installed position and a second portion angled at a second inlet angle towards the second filter cartridge in the second installed position, through duct 130 which comprises angled channels engaging the two filter cartridges with the inlet. With regards to claim 7, the outlet of the filters has a sealing element 142 to engage at an installed position (column 3 line 57).
Hur suggests that the angles appear the same and does not appear to teach the first portion is disposed at a different angle than the second portion in an instance in which the first filter cartridge and the second filter cartridge are in the first and second installed positions, respectively.
However, changing the angles would be an obvious aesthetic choice provided the filters can engage with the inlet. It would have been within ordinary skill in the art to vary the shape, size, or angle of elements as this is a mere design choice.
Regarding claim 15, the filter cartridges engage with diaphragm valve 142 that form a seal with the blower device. The material is not explicitly given as an elastomeric material, however it is within ordinary skill in the art to have an elastomeric diaphragm in order to use its flexible nature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/SHARON PREGLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772