DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 08/04/2026. Claims 1-13 are pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
3. All 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections from the previous office action are maintained.
Response to Arguments
4. In the arguments presented on p.2 of the amendment, the Applicant argues that Mullen et al. (US 20210299303 A1, cited in prior office action), fails to anticipate the amended claim 1 limitation of wherein the satellite face mask and the full-face mask are functional as face mask independently and in combination.
The Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. The limitation of “wherein the satellite face mask and the full-face mask are functional as face mask independently and in combination” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim have been disclosed by Mullen and the apparatus of Mullen is capable of functioning as an independent and combined face mask in regards to the first/satellite face mask and the second/full-face mask. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use / functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, the first/satellite face mask (322, Fig. 3) and second/full-face mask (321, Fig. 3) are shown in combination in configuration 320 (Fig. 3). The satellite face mask can be separate and used as a face mask when the user places said satellite face mask onto their face. The full-face mask is already being used as a face mask in configuration 320, meaning that the full-face mask alone is a functioning face mask.
Per MPEP 2114,II, claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
6. Claims 1, 3-4, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mullen et al. (US 20210299303 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mullen teaches a device (configuration 320, Fig. 3) comprising:
a satellite face mask (sterilization device 322, Fig. 3, equivalent to device 210 of Fig. 2) attachable to and removable from a full-face mask (“fluidically coupled to an air channel of mask 321”, Fig. 3 and [0067]), wherein said satellite face mask includes:
a fan (one or more fans, [0022]);
a plurality of ultraviolet type-C light emitting diodes (UVC LEDs 220-222, Fig. 2) located around a working area that receives external air (hollow cylinder defining a working area defined by circuit board 219 and heat sinks 216 and 223, Fig. 2 and [0076]), wherein at least two of said plurality of ultraviolet type-C light emitting diodes are centered at a wavelength between 250 and 275 nanometers ([0003]), and said ultraviolet type-C light emitting diodes are operable to provide ultraviolet light to said working area ([0005]);
a breathing channel (air channels of mask 321, Fig. 3 and [0067]) in which said external air is moved from said working area to the breathing proximity of a user after traveling through said working area (“multiple UV-C sterilization devices may be coupled to one or more air channels of mask 321”, Fig. 3 and [0067]).
The limitation of “wherein the satellite face mask and the full-face mask are functional as face mask independently and in combination” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus. All the structural limitations of the claim have been disclosed by Mullen and the apparatus of Mullen is capable of functioning as an independent and combined face mask in regards to the first/satellite face mask and the second/full-face mask. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the applicant' s invention (see MPEP §2114).
NOTE: this is a recitation of intended use / functional language, and so long as the prior art structure reads on the instant claimed structure, this limitation would be met because the same structure would be capable of the same function; in this case, the first/satellite face mask (322, Fig. 3) and second/full-face mask (321, Fig. 3) are shown in combination in configuration 320 (Fig. 3). The satellite face mask can be separate and used as a face mask when the user places said satellite face mask onto their face. The full-face mask is already being used as a face mask in configuration 320, meaning that the full-face mask alone is a functioning face mask.
Regarding claim 3, Mullen teaches a second fan (“two fans each with two counter-rotating blades”, [0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Mullen teaches wherein said working area is defined, at least in part, by a cylinder ([0076]) having a UV-C reflective interior ([0006]).
Regarding claim 8, Mullen teaches wherein said full-face mask (321, Fig. 3) includes at least one air filter port operable for receiving an air filter (“a UV-C sterilization device may be placed about an input and/or output and/or filter port to any device such as a face mask”, [0067]).
Regarding claim 10, Mullen teaches wherein said satellite face mask (322 of Fig. 3 equating to device 210 of Fig. 2) includes a rechargeable battery (215 and 224, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Mullen teaches wherein said satellite face mask (322 of Fig. 3 equating to device 210 of Fig. 2) includes a UV-C sensor for sensing an amount of UV-C being generated in said working area (one or more UV-C sensors, [0019]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
8. Claims 2, 7, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullen et al. (US 20210299303 A1), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Mullen teaches a full-face mask (mask 321, Fig. 3) having multiple filter ports ([0067]), but fails to specifically recite wherein said second mask includes at least one mechanical filter. Mullen does mention that “[o]ne or more fixed and/or removable mechanical particulate filters may be provided” ([0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to add a mechanical particulate filter to a filter port (thus making the port a filter port) as taught by Mullen in order to keep particulates away ([0016]).\
Regarding claim 7, Mullen teaches a full-face mask (mask 321, Fig. 3) having multiple filter ports (“multiple UV-C sterilization devices may be coupled to one or more air channels of mask 321”, to which a filter port is an air channel, [0067]), but fails to specifically recite wherein said full-face mask includes at least two mechanical filters.
However, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the number of two filter ports on the mask, yielding the predictable result of increased airflow (i.e., an increased filtering area).
Modified Mullen further mentions that “[o]ne or more fixed and/or removable mechanical particulate filters may be provided” ([0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to add a mechanical particulate filter to each of the two filter ports (thus making the ports filter ports) as taught by Mullen in order to keep particulates away ([0016]).
Regarding claim 9, Mullen teaches a full-face mask (mask 321, Fig. 3) having multiple filter ports (“multiple UV-C sterilization devices may be coupled to one or more air channels of mask 321”, to which a filter port is an air channel, [0067]), but fails to specifically recite wherein said full-face mask includes at least two air filter ports operable each to receive an air filter.
However, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the number of two filter ports on the mask, yielding the predictable result of increased airflow (i.e., an increased filtering area).
Regarding claim 13, Mullen teaches wherein said satellite face mask (322 of Fig. 3 equating to device 210 of Fig. 2) includes a UV-C sensor for sensing an amount of UV-C being generated in said working area (one or more UV-C sensors, [0019]), specifically mentioning more than one UV-C sensors detect amounts of UV-C light in each of their particular areas ([0019]), but fails to specifically recite two UV-C sensors (i.e., a second UV-C sensor for sensing a second amount of UV-C being generated in said working area).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the number of two UV-C sensors from the “one or more” range taught by Mullen, thus yielding the predictable result of a second UV-C sensor detecting amounts of UV-C light in a second area ([0019]).
9. Claim 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullen et al. (US 20210299303 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Mullen et al. (US 20210299318, hereinafter “Mullen ‘318”, cited in prior office action).
Regarding claim 5, Mullen teaches wherein said working area is defined, at least in part, by a cylinder ([0076]) having a UV-C reflective interior ([0006]), but fails to teach wherein a first UV-C reflective object is placed about an entrance of said cylinder to reflect UV-C light back into said cylinder, wherein said external air is operable to move around said first UV-C reflective object.
Mullen teaches a facemask configuration (320, Fig. 3) having a sterilization device (322, Fig. 3) attached in fluid connection to a conventional face mask (321, Fig. 3), where “UV-C reflective objects may be placed in the inlets and/or outlets such that light is reflected back into the working area but air is permitted to flow past and/or through the objects” ([0033]) within the sterilization device.
Mullen and Mullen ‘316 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a facemask configuration having a sterilization device attached in fluid connection to a conventional face mask for purification.
Therefore, 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 inlet and outlet of the sterilization device by incorporating UV-C reflective objects/structures at each end of the working area (i.e., inlet and outlet) in order to reflect light back into the working area yet permitting air to flow past the objects/structures (Mullen ‘318, [0033]).
Regarding claim 6, Mullen teaches wherein said working area is defined, at least in part, by a cylinder ([0076]) having a UV-C reflective interior ([0006]), but fails to teach wherein said working area is defined, at least in part, by a cylinder having a UV-C reflective interior, wherein a first UV-C reflective object is placed about an entrance of said cylinder to reflect UV-C light back into said cylinder, a second UV-C reflective object is placed about an exit of said cylinder to reflect UV-C light back into said cylinder, wherein said external air is operable to move around said first UV-C reflective object and said second UV-C object.
Mullen teaches a facemask configuration (320, Fig. 3) having a sterilization device (322, Fig. 3) attached in fluid connection to a conventional face mask (321, Fig. 3), where “UV-C reflective objects may be placed in the inlets and/or outlets such that light is reflected back into the working area but air is permitted to flow past and/or through the objects” ([0033]) within the sterilization device.
Mullen and Mullen ‘316 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a facemask configuration having a sterilization device attached in fluid connection to a conventional face mask for purification.
Therefore, 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 inlet and outlet of the sterilization device by incorporating UV-C reflective objects/structures at each end of the working area (i.e., inlet and outlet) in order to reflect light back into the working area yet permitting air to flow past the objects/structures (Mullen ‘318, [0033]).
10. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullen et al. (US 20210299303 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Mullen et al. (US 20210299316 A1, hereinafter “Mullen ‘316”, cited in prior office action).
Regarding claim 11, Mullen teaches said satellite face mask (322 of Fig. 3 equating to device 210 of Fig. 2), but fails to teach a flow sensor for determining the direction and magnitude of air flowing through said working area.
Mullen teaches a facemask configuration (320, Fig. 3) having a sterilization device (322, Fig. 3) attached in fluid connection to a conventional face mask (321, Fig. 3), with a working area ([0005]) that may have a flow sensor in order to “determine flow through a working area” ([0088]).
Mullen and Mullen ‘316 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a facemask configuration having a sterilization device attached in fluid connection to a conventional face mask for purification.
Therefore, 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 working area of Mullen by incorporating a flow sensor as taught by Mullen ‘316 in order to “determine flow through a working area” (Mullen ‘316, [0088]).
Conclusion
11. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aham Lee whose telephone number is (703)756-5622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:00 AM - 8:00 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, Maris R. Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/Aham Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights