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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-13 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 1 recites the limitation "said working channel" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is likely Applicant is intending this term to be in accordance to "working area" in line 7 and will be interpreted as such in this office action.
Claims 2 and 7-9 all recite “said second face mask”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is likely Applicant is intending this term to be in accordance to "second facemask housing" in claim 1, line 3 and will be interpreted as such in this office action.
Claims 10-13 all recite “said first face mask”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is likely Applicant is intending this term to be in accordance to "first facemask housing" in claim 1, line 2 and will be interpreted as such in this office action.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said working channel" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is likely Applicant is intending this term to be in accordance to "working area" in claim 1, line 7 and will be interpreted as such in this office action.
The remaining claims are rejected due to a dependency basis from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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 first facemask housing (sterilization device 322, Fig. 3, equivalent to device 210 of Fig. 2) attachable to and removable from a second facemask housing (“fluidically coupled to an air channel of mask 321”, Fig. 3 and [0067]), wherein said first facemask housing 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]).
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 second facemask housing (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 first facemask housing (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 first facemask housing (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
6. 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.
7. 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 second facemask housing (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 second facemask housing (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 second facemask housing 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 second facemask housing (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 second facemask housing 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 first facemask housing (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]).
8. 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”).
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]).
9. 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”).
Regarding claim 11, Mullen teaches said first facemask housing (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
10. 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