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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/21/2026.
Applicant’s election of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim states “an signal” twice. Applicant is respectfully advised to amend these to “a signal”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim states “parameter information”. This appears to be a misstatement of “the parameter information” in view of the apparent antecedent in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim states “parameter information” and “adsorption generation”. This appears to be a misstatement of “the parameter information” and “the adsorption generation” in view of the apparent antecedent in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3, and 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 1 recites the limitation "the filter" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted the phrase “[a] filter remaining capacity detection system” is not a positive recitation of “a filter,” so “the filter” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a threshold" in line 3. It is unclear if this is a different “threshold” than that of claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “initiates generation” in line 1. It is unclear if this generation is referring to generation of the adsorption estimate, the remaining capacity estimate, or the signal as indicated in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "parameter information" in line 2. It is unclear if this is a different “parameter information” than that of claim 1. It will be interpreted as a different parameter information.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a threshold" in line 2. It is unclear if this is a different “threshold” than that of claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truex (US20120055815A1) in view of Hasan (US20190105594A1).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truex in view of Hasan in view of Curran (US20150202473A1).
Rejection in view of Truex and Hasan
Claim 1: Truex teaches a remaining service life indication system (Abstract)(i.e., a filter remaining capacity detection system) comprising: concentration and airflow sensors ([0041]) and environmental sensors ([0089])(i.e., a parameter retriever that retrieves parameter information for an atmosphere around the filter); one of multiple CPUs ([0049]) for calculating a total amount adsorbed of at least one chemical compound ([0041])(i.e., an adsorption estimate generator); one of multiple CPUs ([0049]) for calculating a remaining capacity of the canister ([0041])(i.e., a remaining capacity supply that generates a remaining capacity estimate based on the adsorption estimate); and a signal generator that generates a signal if the remaining capacity estimate is below a threshold (Warning/alarm signals system [0073]).
Truex does not explicitly state an adsorption estimate generator that is a distinct processor from the remaining capacity detector, the claimed configuration would have been obvious because the teaching of multiple CPUs is interpreted to implicitly teach the dividing of different processing tasks among the different processing units for the same device (Truex claims 1 and 6). It is also obvious because the teaching of separately calculating a total amount adsorbed and a remaining capacity ([0041]) is interpreted to implicitly teach having distinct coding for each calculation, each of which may be regarded as an adsorption estimate generator and a remaining capacity detector within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (see MPEP2111).
Truex does not explicitly state an adsorption estimate generator that, based on the parameter information retrieved, solves a set of controlling equations to generate an adsorption estimate, wherein the controlling equations are a set of mass and energy balance equations. Truex teaches in [0041] calculating the total chemical adsorption in the canister. Hasan discloses an adsorption system ([0005]) and a model of its function ([0086]). Hasan teaches that the adsorption can be modeled using mass and energy balances with 1 dimensional non linear algebraic partial different equations (i.e., controlling equations) in order to produce a high fidelity process model. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Truex by providing an adsorption estimate generator that, based on the parameter information retrieved, solves a set of controlling equations to generate an adsorption estimate, wherein the controlling equations are a set of mass and energy balance equations as taught by Hasan because it was known that component mass balances and energy balances modeled with a 1-dimensional nonlinear algebraic partial differential equations (i.e., controlling equations) can produce a high fidelity process model of adsorption (Hasan, [0080]) and the skilled practitioner of Truex would have found it obvious to provide a controller using such a model to improve estimates of adsorption (See MPEP2143(I)(D)).
Claim 2: Truex teaches one of multiple CPUs for carrying out instructions and performs sensor information retrieval and the real load approximation of the system ([0049]-[0050]) (i.e., a controller that initiates retrieval of parameter information by the parameter retriever and generation of the adsorption estimate).
While Truex does not explicitly state the controller being a distinct processor from the CPU, the claimed configuration would have been obvious because the teaching of multiple CPUs is interpreted to implicitly teach the dividing of different processing tasks among the different processing units for the same device (Truex claims 1 and 6). It is also obvious because the teaching of multiple processors is interpreted to implicitly teach having distinct coding for each calculation and step for carrying out instructions, one of which may be regarded as the controller within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (see MPEP2111).
Claim 3: Truex teaches that the CPU generates an alarm when 75% and 80% of the cartridge capacity is reached ([0073])(i.e., the controller initiates generation, by the adsorption estimate generator, when a detected change in parameter information retrieved is higher than a threshold). Truex does not explicitly state that the controller automatically initiates generation. This is implicitly taught as Truex teaches that the CPU is able to operate in real time ([0073]).
Claim 4: Truex teaches the controller initiates retrieval periodically ([0073] teaches that the CPU is able to receive and integrate all signals as parameters change in real time.).
Claim 5: Truex does not explicitly state the retrieved parameter information is a first retrieved parameter information and wherein the controller causes the parameter retriever to retrieve a second parameter information substantially immediately after the adsorption estimate is generated. However, Truex is interpreted as implicitly teaching a controller that causes immediate retrieval of consecutive parameters in view of the teaching of real time monitoring ([0006] and [0073]).
Claim 6: Truex teaches the system is incorporated into a personal protective equipment device (Abstract teaches this is for a gas mask or canister for a gas mask.).
Claim 7: Truex teaches the personal protective equipment device comprises the filter ([0045] teaches that canister has filter media.).
Claim 9: Truex does not explicitly state the signal is an alert that remaining adsorption capacity estimate is below a threshold however Truex teaches the warning/alarm signal is generated at 75%, 80%, and over 80% of the total capacity ([0073]). However, the issuing of signals when an estimate is below a threshold is regarded as lacking in patentable distinctiveness over issuing a signal when the complementary value of the same parameter is exceeded.
Rejection in view of Truex, Hasan, and Curran
Claim 8: Truex teaches one of multiple CPUs for carrying out instructions and performs the operations of the system ([0049])(i.e., a controller that initiates retrieval of parameter information and adsorption generation). The limitation of the controller automatically initiating retrieval when a filter is connected and a flow rate is detected is implicitly taught by Truex as Truex teaches that the system is running in real time ([0073]).
While Truex does not explicitly state the controller being a distinct processor from the CPU, the claimed configuration would have been obvious because the teaching of multiple CPUs is interpreted to implicitly teach the dividing of different processing tasks among the different processing units for the same device (Truex claims 1 and 6). It is also obvious because the teaching of multiple processors is interpreted to implicitly teach having distinct coding for each calculation and step for carrying out instructions, one of which may be regarded as the controller within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (see MPEP2111).
Truex does not explicitly teach the filter is a Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPR) filter. Truex teaches measuring gas mask canister service life (abstract) and that contemporary safety practice requires all gas respirations to have a reliable method for indication of end of service life ([0005]). Curran teaches a powered exhaust apparatus (abstract)(i.e., powered respirator). Curran teaches the use of the powered exhaust apparatus allows for making breathing easier for the wearer and being able to improve CO2 levels inside the respirator ([0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to have a powered respirator filter be used as Curran teaches that powered exhaust apparatus allows for making it easier for the wearer to breathe and to improve CO2 levels inside the respirator ([0050]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20150082914 teaches an air filter on a respiratory mask with a control means to with an end of life service indicator.
US20090056536 teaches measuring filter breakthrough with an upstream and downstream sensor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9-5:30.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/P.Y.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 08/20/2026
/GABRIEL E GITMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights