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 .
This action is in response to the filing on 7/6/2026. Since the previous filing, claims 1 and 7 have been amended, claims 11-20 have been added and no claims have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending on the application.
In regards to the priority, Examiner rescinds this argument as an electronic copy of this document has been retrieved by the office.
In regards to the previous 101 Rejection, Applicants amendments do not overcome these rejections and they are therefore maintained, modified for the amendments, with new rejections entered for added claims below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
[STEP 1]
In regards to claim 1, the claim is a method consisting of abstract ideas and is one of the four statutory categories.
[STEP 2A, Prong One]
The claim recites the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: determining a net volatility associated with a dispersing element of a filter component of a respiratory protective device; based at least in part on the net volatility associated with the dispersing element, determining a remaining lifespan value for the filter component; identifying a lapsed lifespan condition associated with the dispersing element based at least in part on the remaining lifespan value; and upon identifying the lapsed lifespan condition associated with the dispersing element, generating an alert signal configured to provide an indication of the lapsed lifespan condition associated with the dispersing element, wherein the net volatility associated with the dispersing element is determined based at least in part on one or more approximation algorithms defined according to one or more operational characteristics associated with the respiratory protective device (judgment or evaluation which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG). The above limitations are limited to a mental process that can be done by a person simply collection data regarding user actions, evaluating that data and making a determination based upon that evaluation.
[STEP 2B, Prong Two]
The claim recites additional elements of a respiratory mask having a filter. These additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because of the following: they are generic devices. The generic devices do not improve the function of the system of any other technology or technical field. The elements do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because there are no distinguishing elements of the device. Thus, for these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent claim 1 (and its respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
[STEP 2B]
The claim does not recite any additional structure that would make it significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are described with a high degree of generality without any features or elements to distinguish over the conventional and well known devices of the art as shown by Chun (US 2021/0386141; paragraph 98).
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
[STEP 1]
In regards to claim 11, the claim is a method consisting of abstract idea and organization of human activity and is among the four statutory categories.
[STEP 2A, Prong One]
The claim recites the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: determining a net volatility associated with a dispersing element of a filter component of a respiratory protective device; based at least in part on the net volatility associated with the dispersing element, determining a remaining lifespan value for the filter component; wherein the net volatility associated with the dispersing element is determined based at least in part on one or more approximation algorithms defined according to one or more operational characteristics associated with the respiratory protective device (judgment or evaluation which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG) and repairing or replacing the dispersing element based on the remaining lifespan value for the filter component (grouped as methods of organizing human activity under 2019 PEG). The above limitations are limited to a mental process that can be done by a person simply collection data regarding user actions, evaluating that data and making a determination based upon that evaluation and organizing behavior in response.
[STEP 2B, Prong Two]
The claim recites additional elements of a respiratory mask having a filter. These additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because of the following: they are generic devices. The generic devices do not improve the function of the system of any other technology or technical field. The elements do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because there are no distinguishing elements of the device. Thus, for these reasons, the abstract idea and human activity organization identified above in the independent claim 11 (and its respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
[STEP 2B]
The claim does not recite any additional structure that would make it significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are described with a high degree of generality without any features or elements to distinguish over the conventional and well known devices of the art as shown by Chun (US 2021/0386141; paragraph 98).
Response to Arguments
In regards to the arguments concerning independent claim 1, these arguments are partially in regards to the amendments made to the claims and are addressed in the modified rejections entered above. Applicant further speaks against the 101 Rejection as an abstract concept and mental process, but fails to establish any argument as to why, merely restating claim limitations without reasoning.
In regards to the arguments concerning new independent claim 11, these arguments are addressed in the new rejections entered above.
Arguments concerning the dependent claims are in regards to their dependency on above argued independent claims and are addressed therein.
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 Arielle Wolff whose telephone number is (571)272-8727. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/ARIELLE WOLFF/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights