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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to a preliminary amendment filed on 3/5/2024. As directed by the preliminary amendment, no claims were canceled, claims 2-19 were amended, and no new claims were added. Thus, claims 1-19 are pending for this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “further locating feature” (claims 7-9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a locating feature configured to detachably connect to the nozzle assembly” in claim 5, “a further locating feature configured to contact the nozzle assembly when the locating feature is connected to the nozzle assembly” in claim 7, and “extension mechanism for controlling a length of the nozzle assembly” in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, the corresponding structure of the “extension mechanism” in claim 19 includes: an arm that engages with teeth internal of the first and second end portions to form a ratchet.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5-9 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 limitations “locating feature” and “further locating feature” in claims 5-9 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, claims 5-9 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “nozzle assembly comprises a further locating feature configured to contact the nozzle assembly when the locating feature is connected to the nozzle assembly” in lines 1-3 is unclear how the nozzle assembly can comprise the further locating feature if the nozzle assembly but also the further locating feature is configured to contact the nozzle assembly (it appears the further locating feature is only sometimes part of the nozzle assembly so the beginning of the claim stating that the nozzle assembly includes this feature appears to be contradictory).
This is rendered further unclear by claims 8-9 which state that the further locating feature is detachably connected to the nozzle assembly, which is unclear because the claim states the further locating feature is part of the nozzle assembly but these claims suggest they are not.
The remaining claims are rejected due to dependence on a rejected base 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 10, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin (KR 20180009326), referred to hereinafter as Shin A.
Regarding claim 1, Shin A discloses (Figs. 1-12) a head wearable air purifier comprising:
a headgear (head strap, paragraph [0054] and Fig. 12)
an air purifier assembly (front skeleton 110) supported by the headgear, the air purifier assembly comprising a filter (filter 160) and an airflow generator (fan 150) for generating an airflow through the filter (paragraph [0034]);
a nozzle assembly (back skeleton 120) configured to extend in front of a face of a wearer in use (see Fig. 12), the nozzle assembly comprising an inlet aperture (inlet 122) configured to receive a filtered airflow from the air purifier assembly (paragraph [0042]), and an air outlet (outlet 125) for emitting the filtered airflow from the nozzle assembly; and
a mask body (skeletal portion 140) detachably connected to the nozzle assembly (paragraph [0051]), the mask body defining a cavity for receiving a mouth and/or nose of the wearer (Fig. 12), the cavity in fluid communication with the air outlet (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 2, because Shin A discloses the mask body 140 is detachably coupled to the nozzle assembly (paragraph [0051]), the nozzle assembly would be capable of delivering the filtered airflow to a mouth and/or nasal region of the wearer in use without contacting the face of the wearer (i.e. user keeps head strap around head but nozzle assembly hangs off of face but still capable of delivering air to a user when user inhales), and thus Shin comprehends the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Shin A discloses the mask body comprises a locating feature (upper and lower ribs 146a,146b) configured to detachably connect to the nozzle assembly (via connection to fitting portion of nozzle assembly 120, see paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 6, Shin A discloses the locating feature (upper and lower ribs 146a,146b) is configured to form an interference fit (see Fig. 9) with a portion of the nozzle assembly to detachably connect the locating feature to the nozzle assembly (see Fig. 9 and paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Shin A discloses the nozzle assembly (120) comprises a further locating feature (bolt nut coupling structure 190) configured to contact the nozzle assembly when the locating feature is connected to the nozzle assembly (paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Shin A discloses wherein the further locating feature is configured to detachably connect to the nozzle assembly (bolts and nuts are a removable attachment structure and thus detachable connection is achieved).
Regarding claim 10, Shin A discloses the mask body comprises a flow guide (seal 146) for inhibiting the airflow emitted from the air outlet from leaking around the mask body (paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 12, Shin A discloses the mask body comprises a seal (seal 146) for sealing with a face of the wearer in use (paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 18, Shin A discloses the nozzle assembly is detachably connected to the air purifier assembly (via coupling of portions 120c of nozzle assembly to coupling portions 110c of purifier assembly, see Fig. 11).
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by an alternative interpretation Shin (KR 20180009326), referred to hereinafter as Shin B.
Regarding claim 1, Shin B discloses (Figs. 1-12) a head wearable air purifier comprising:
a headgear (head strap, paragraph [0054] and Fig. 12)
an air purifier assembly (back portion 120) supported by the headgear, the air purifier assembly comprising a filter (filter 126) and an airflow generator (fan 150) for generating an airflow through the filter (paragraph [0034]);
a nozzle assembly (portion 140) configured to extend in front of a face of a wearer in use (see Fig. 12), the nozzle assembly comprising an inlet aperture (inlet at seal 146) configured to receive a filtered airflow from the air purifier assembly, and an air outlet (outlet at surface of portion 140 opposite of seal 146) for emitting the filtered airflow from the nozzle assembly; and
a mask body (cover portion 130) detachably connected to the nozzle assembly (paragraph [0036]), the mask body defining a cavity for receiving a mouth and/or nose of the wearer (Fig. 12), the cavity in fluid communication with the air outlet (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Shin B discloses the mask body comprises a further filter (filter 160, accommodated in mask body 130, paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 4, Shin B discloses the further filter is removable (paragraph [0034]).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin A (KR20180009326A) in view of Rossler (CN 108066912).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Shin A discloses the further locating feature is configured to form an screw fit with a further portion of the nozzle assembly to detachably connect the further locating feature to the nozzle assembly (nut and bolt coupling structure 190, paragraph [0038]), but does not disclose this fit is an interference fit.
However, Rossler teaches (Fig. 1) a face mask assembly comprising a nozzle assembly (filter material mask 30) that includes a further locating feature in the form of stop pin and locking holes (holes 34), which inherently forms an interference fit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the detachable connection of the nozzle assembly of Shin A from screw fit to interference fit, as taught by Rossler, for the purpose of providing a reliable connection structure that is detachable yet secure, as it has been held that
simple substitution of one well-known connection structure (nut-bolt arrangement of Shin A) with another well known connection structure (pin and hole arrangement of Rossler) would provide the expected result of detachably securing the further locating feature to the nozzle assembly (see rationale for obviousness of a simple substitution of a well-known structure in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See also MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claim(s) 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin A (KR20180009326A).
Regarding claim 11, Shin A discloses the flow guide comprises a flexible silicon material (paragraph [0052]), but does not disclose the specific Shore A durometer value of this flexible silicon material. However, outside evidence of criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to try a shore A durometer value between 70-90 for the flow guide for the purpose of improving sealing effect of the mask body, since discovering the optimum value only involves routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, Shin A discloses the seal comprises a flexible silicon material (paragraph [0052]), but does not disclose the specific Shore A durometer value of this flexible silicon material. However, outside evidence of criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to try a shore A durometer value between 30-50 for the seal for the purpose of improving sealing effect of the mask body, since discovering the optimum value only involves routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, Shin A does not disclose the mask body is configured such that a pressure drop of the airflow between the air outlet and the cavity is between 400 and 500 pascals in use. However, outside evidence of criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to try a pressure drop of the airflow between the air outlet and the cavity is between 400 and 500 pascals for the purpose of improving user comfort during use, since discovering the optimum value only involves routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin A (KR20180009326A) in view of Ko (US 2019/0075863).
Regarding claim 14, Shin A discloses a mask body made of a flexible silicon (paragraph [0052]) but does not disclose the mask body comprises an open cell foam.
However, Ko teaches (Fig. 4) a mask body (mask body 10) that can be made of rubber, silicon, polypropylene or polyurethane foam (polyurethane foam is an open cell foam).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the material of the mask body of Shin A from silicon to an open cell foam, as taught by Ko, for the purpose of providing a material to interface with the user that is both comfortable and reliable for sealing, as it has been held that
simple substitution of one well-known mask material (silicon of Shin A) with another well known mask masterial (polyurethane foam of Ko) would provide the expected result of providing a comfortable interface and reliable seal from the environment (see rationale for obviousness of a simple substitution of a well-known structure in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). See also MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin B (KR20180009326A) in view of Montesi (US 4,630,604).
Regarding claim 16, Shin B discloses a mask body, but does not disclose the mask body comprises at least one tab configured to retain a filter media in use.
However, Montesi teaches (Fig. 1) a mask body (filter frame 14) comprising at least one tab (ribs 38) configured to retain a filter media in use (Col. 4 lines 38-42).
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 mask body of Shin B to include at least one tab configured to retain a filter media in use, as taught by Montesi, for the purpose of improving securement of the filter media so that it is not dislodged during movement and use of the device.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin B (KR20180009326A) in view of Montesi (US 4,630,604), and further in view of Turk (US 2021/0392975).
Regarding claim 17, modified Shin B does not disclose the material of the tab (rib 38 of Montesi) and thus does not disclose wherein the tab comprises a shore A durometer of between 30 and 50.
However, Turk teaches (Figs. 7-8) a mask body (mask body 12) having a tab (rib 66) for securing a filter (filter cartridge 14) wherein the tab comprises a shore A durometer between 30 to 50 (tab 66 made of elastomeric material that has shore A between 30-40, paragraph [0021]).
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 material of the tab of modified Shin B to have a shore A between 30-50, as taught by Turk, for the purpose of improving securement of the filter to the mask body due to the elasticity of the material of the mask body (paragraph [0100] Turk).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin A (KR20180009326A) in view of Kao (US 2014/0373846).
Regarding claim 19, Shin discloses the nozzle assembly connects to headgear in the form of straps that extend around head of user (see paragraph [0054] and Fig. 12), but does not disclose the nozzle assembly comprises an extension mechanism for controlling a length of the nozzle assembly.
However, Kao teaches (Fig. 5) a nozzle assembly (comprising airways 157,158, 160 and 161) having an extension mechanism (connecting arrangement 165 and arrangement 175) for controlling a length of the nozzle assembly (paragraph [0147]).
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 nozzle assembly of Shin A to include an extension mechanism for controlling a length of the nozzle assembly, as taught by Kao, for the purpose of allowing for adjustment of the length of the nozzle arrangement for comfort and fit for the user (paragraph [0147] Kao).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Xiao (CN 203898976) disclose a breathing mask with ear attachments similar to applicant’s invention.
McAuley (US 2015/0374946) discloses a detachable mask system similar to what is claimed in claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MOON whose telephone number is (571)272-2554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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.
/MATTHEW R MOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights