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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains less than 50 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains term that is implied, (i.e., the term “disclosed” in line 1 of the abstract). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology, (i.e., the term “comprises” in line 2 of the abstract). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Presently, no limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 112(f).
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 9-12 and 16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “a second non-woven polypropylene outer layer, and a second non-woven polypropylene inner layer” (lines 2-3) is unclear if there is a first non-woven polypropylene outer layer and a first non-woven polypropylene inner layer being claimed or not, to claim a second non-woven polypropylene outer layer and a second non-woven polypropylene inner layer without claiming a first non-woven polypropylene outer layer and a first non-woven polypropylene inner layer make it unclear if a first non-woven polypropylene outer layer and a first non-woven polypropylene inner layer are being claimed or not.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “a second nichrome wire” (lines 1-2) is unclear if a first nichrome wire is being claimed or not, to claim a second nichrome wire without claiming a first nichrome wire makes it unclear if a first nichrome wire is being claimed or not.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “a second non-woven polypropylene melt blown filter layer” (lines 1-2) is unclear if a first non-woven polypropylene melt blown filter layer is being claimed or not, to claim a second non-woven polypropylene melt blown filter layer without claiming a first non-woven polypropylene melt blown filter layer makes it unclear if a first non-woven polypropylene melt blown filter layer is being claimed or not.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the nose plug” (line 3) lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear if the nose plug in line 3 is referring to the first plug, or the second plug, or both the first and the second plugs, or the nose plug apparatus.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 13, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (CN 212437453).
PNG
media_image1.png
647
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses a nose plug apparatus (entire apparatus shown in fig. 1, see paragraphs 0012, 0016, and 0020 of the English translation, Huang discloses that 4 is a nose plug), comprising a first plug (see the annotated-Huang fig. 1 above); and a pathogen inactivation system (12 and 11, fig. 1, paragraph 0016) including a first heating element (a heating element of 12, paragraph 0031, Huang discloses “lamps” configured to heat to a temperature of about 70° C, therefore, there are a first infrared lamp (first heating element) and there is a second infrared lamp (second heating element)) coupled to the first plug, the first heating element configured to receive an electrical current to heat the first plug and inactivate pathogens proximate the first plug (see paragraph 0008, Huang discloses that the heating element 12 including an infrared lamp tube, a heating plate, a heating tube, and a heating wire, and further discloses in paragraph 0030 that the infrared lamps generate a temperature of about 70° C, which can effectively kill viruses).
Regarding claim 2, Huang discloses that that a second plug (see the annotated-Huang fig. 1 above), wherein pathogen inactivation system further comprises a second heating element coupled to the second plug (see the inactivation system 12, see paragraph 0008, Huang discloses that the heating element including an infrared lamp tube, a heating plate, a heating tube, and a heating wire, and further discloses in paragraph 0030 that the infrared lamps generate a temperature of about 70° C, which can effectively kill viruses, it is noted that Huang discloses “lamps”, therefore, there is a first heating element and a second heating element).
Regarding claim 13, Huang discloses that the pathogen inactivation system further comprises a controller (see circuit board, see paragraph 0031) in electrical communication with the first heating element, the controller configured to activate the first heating element and inactivate pathogens that are proximate the first heating element (see paragraphs 0008 and 0030).
Regarding claim 16, Huang discloses that the first heating element and the second heating element are configured to electrically couple to a power supply and activate to clean the nose plug (see paragraphs 0013, 0016, and 0030-0031, Huang discloses infrared lamps and circuit board and indicator lights 15, therefore, there is a power supply, furthermore, the killing of virus would clean the nose plug, since clean air being provided would displace the air present within the plugs).
Regarding claim 19, Huang discloses that the first plug and the second plug are coupled together by a bridge (see the annotated-Huang fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 20, Huang discloses that the first plug and the second plug are uncoupled plugs (see fig. 1, the first plug and the second plug are uncoupled plugs relative to the user’s nose (can couple and be uncoupled from the user’s nose), it is noted that the claimed limitation does not claim that the first plug is uncoupled from the second plug, rather the claim is claiming that the first plug and the second plug are uncoupled plugs).
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 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.
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.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN 212437453) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tan (2023/0149747).
Regarding claims 17-18, Huang discloses a power source (see paragraphs 0013, 0016, and 0030-0031, Huang discloses infrared lamps and circuit board and indicator lights 15, therefore, there is a power supply) in electrical communication with the controller (see circuit board, see paragraph 0031), but fails to disclose that the power source is rechargeable and is portable.
However, Tan teaches a portable and rechargeable power source (see claim 6 and paragraph 0081 of Tan, supported by paragraphs 0076-0077 of the provisional application 63/013,948) and a pathogen inactivation system (114, 408, 412, 116, 118, 120, 122, 124, 126 and 128, fig. 4, paragraphs 0016-0017, 0070-0073) comprises a controller (122, 124, and 126, figs. 1 and 4) in electrical communication with a heating element (408, fig. 4), the controller configured to activate the heating element and inactivate pathogens that are proximate the heating element (see abstract, paragraphs 0047-0048 and 0077, see full disclosure of the provisional application 63/013,948, specifically, see paragraphs 0042, 0043, 0072-0073, 0078-0079 of the provisional application 63/013,948).
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 heating element of Huang to have the power source as taught by Tan for the purpose of providing portability and rechargeability (see claim 6 and paragraph 0081 of Tan, supported by paragraphs 0076-0077 of the provisional application 63/013,948).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN 212437453) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Alami (2019/0216963).
Regarding claims 14-15, Huang fails to disclose that the pathogen inactivation system further comprises a sensor in electrical communication with the controller, the sensor configured to provide at least one of bacterial or viral data to the controller, wherein the controller is configured to determine a pathogen amount exceeds a pre-determined pathogen threshold, and wherein the controller is configured to activate the first heating element in response to the determining the pathogen amount exceeds the pre-determined pathogen threshold.
However, Alami teaches a pathogen inactivation system further comprises a sensor (see bacteria sensor 400 in paragraphs 0009-0015 and 0029-0033) in electrical communication with the controller (control system 170, figs. 1-2, paragraphs 0028 and 0030), the sensor configured to provide at least one of bacterial or viral data to the controller, wherein the controller is configured to determine a pathogen amount exceeds a pre-determined pathogen threshold, and wherein the controller is configured to activate a sterilization system (500, paragraphs 0069-0070 and 0072) in response to the determining the pathogen amount exceeds the pre-determined pathogen threshold (see paragraphs 0013-0014, 0044-0050, 0069-0072).
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 controller and the heating elements of Huang to have the controller and sensor as taught by Alami for the purpose of providing an automatic system that would activate and control the heating element to sterilize the pathogen when an amount of pathogen exceed a threshold.
Claims 1-3, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers (4,327,719) in view of Bystricky (2021/0321703).
Regarding claim 1, Childers discloses a nose plug apparatus (10, figs. 1-5, col 2, lines 39-59), comprising: a first plug (30 and 16, figs. 1-2); and a first filter layer (26 in 30/16, see figs. 1-3 and 6, col 2, line 66 to col 3, line 35) and a second plug (30’ and 16’, figs. 1-2) comprising a second filter layer (26 in 30’/16’, see figs. 1-3 and 6), but fails to disclose a pathogen inactivation system including a first heating element coupled to the first plug, the first heating element configured to receive an electrical current to heat the first plug and inactivate pathogens proximate the first plug.
However, Bystricky teaches a filter layer (10, 100, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 200, fig. 2, see paragraphs 0006, 0015, and 0024) comprising a pathogen inactivation system (10, 20, 100, 200, and associated power source) including a first heating element (20), the first heating element configured to receive an electrical current to heat the first plug and inactivate pathogens proximate the first plug (see paragraphs 0014-0017 and 0023-0026, the carbon nano tube (CNT) layer formed by 10 and 20 provide resistive heating to kill viruses).
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 each of the first filter layer and the second filter layer of Childers to be the filter layer comprising a pathogen inactivation system as taught by Bystricky for the purpose of providing a filter material that is capable of sterilizing the filter layers by inactivating pathogens, thereby, providing safety to the user (see paragraphs 0014-0017 and 0023-0026 of Bystricky).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Childers discloses a second plug (30’ and 16’, figs. 1-2 of Childers), wherein the pathogen inactivation system (10, 20, 100, 200, and associated power source of Bystricky) further comprises a heating element (20 of Bystricky in the second plug (30’ and 16’ of Childers)) coupled to the second plug (see the modification with Bystricky above).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Childers discloses that the first heating element is embedded within the first plug and the second heating element is embedded within the second plug (see figs. 1-6 of Childers, the respective filter layer 26 is being embedded within the first plug (30/16) and the second plug (30’/16’), therefore, after the modification with Bystricky, the filter layer 26 of Childers is being replaced with the filter layer of Bystricky, which comprises the heating element 20, therefore, the first heating element and the second heating element would be embedded within the first plug and the second plug, respectively).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Childers discloses that the first heating element and the second heating element are configured to electrically couple to a power supply and activate to clean the nose plug (see abstract and paragraphs 0014 and 0016 of Bystricky, Bystricky discloses a power source for activating the heating elements, therefore, would activate to clean the nose plug).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Childers discloses that the first plug and the second plug are coupled together by a bridge (50 of Childers, see figs. 1-2 and 7 and col 3, line 61 to col 4, line 7 of Childers).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Childers discloses that the first plug and the second plug are uncoupled plugs (see fig. 1 of Childers, the first plug and the second plug are uncoupled plugs relative to the user’s nose, it is noted that the claimed limitation does not claim that the first plug is uncoupled from the second plug, rather the claim is claiming that the first plug and the second plug are uncoupled plugs).
However, if there is any doubt that the modified Childers discloses that the first plug and the second plug are uncoupled plugs.
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 first plugs and the second plugs of the modified Childers to be uncoupled plugs relative to each other since it has been held that forming two pieces from an article which has formerly been formed in one unit involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. (C)
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers (4,327,719) in view of Bystricky (2021/0321703) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Faridi (WO 2016/128844).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Childers discloses an outer layer (10, fig. 2 and paragraph 0025 of Bystricky) and an inner layer (50, fig. 2 and paragraph 0024 of Bystricky), but fails to disclose that the first plug comprises a first non-woven polypropylene outer layer and a first non-woven polypropylene inner layer.
However, Faridi teaches that the inner and outer layers comprise a non-woven polypropylene material (see 104, figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 0011, 0021, 0023).
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 inner and outer layer of the first plug and the second plug of the modified Childers to include non-woven polypropylene as taught by Faridi for the purpose of providing a filtering layer that would provide the predictable result of filtering out contaminants and to provide a material that is inexpensive and provides the highest yield, and moreover, has the lowest specific gravity and the highest versatility (see paragraph 0023 of Faridi).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Childers discloses that the first heating element is disposed between the first non-woven polypropylene outer layer and the first non-woven polypropylene inner layer (see the modification above with Faridi and fig. 2 of Childers, after the modification, the heating element 20 of Bystricky would be placed between 10 and 50 of Bystricky which are modified to have non-woven polypropylene).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers (4,327,719) in view of Bystricky (2021/0321703) and Faridi (WO 2016/128844) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Sabin (11,096,438).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Childers fails to disclose that the first heating element comprises a first nichrome wire.
However, Sabin teaches that a heating element can be a carbon tape or a nichrome wire (see col 6, lines 43-49).
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 first heating element and the second heating element of the modified Childers to be a nichrome wire as taught by Sabin for the purpose of substituting one well-known heating element with another well-known heating element that would provide the predictable result of heating the air being provided to the user.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers (4,327,719) in view of Bystricky (2021/0321703), Faridi (WO 2016/128844), and Sabin (11,096,438) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Faridi (WO 2016/128844)
Regarding claim 7, the modified Childers discloses that layer 50 of Bystricky may comprise a filter layer (see paragraph 0024 of Bystricky, Bystricky discloses the inner layer 50 maybe be supplemented with a disposable insert such as a paper filter), but fails to disclose that the first plug further comprises a first non-woven polypropylene melt blown filter layer.
However, Faridi teaches a non-woven polypropylene melt blown filter layer (102, fig. 1, paragraphs 0019, 0026 and 0029) coated with nano-layer (103) and is positioned between an inner and outer layers that are made of non-woven polypropylene (104, see paragraphs 0011, 0021, 0023).
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 filter layer of the first plug and the second plug of the modified Childers to have the non-woven polypropylene melt blown filter layer being on one side of the inner layer (50 of Bystricky) and positioned between the outer and inner layers of the modified Childers as taught by Faridi for the purpose of providing a filter material layer that protect the user from particles in the nanometer size range or sub-micron size range (see paragraph 0019 of Faridi).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Childers discloses that the first non-woven polypropylene melt blown filter (102 and 103 Faridi) is disposed between the first non-woven polypropylene outer layer (10 of Bystricky modified to have non-woven polypropylene, see the modification with Faridi above) and the first non-woven polypropylene inner layer (50 of Bystricky modified to have non-woven polypropylene, see the modification with Faridi above, see fig. 1 of Faridi).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers (4,327,719) in view of Bystricky (2021/0321703) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Faridi (WO 2016/128844).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Childers discloses an outer layer (10, fig. 2 and paragraph 0025 of Bystricky) and an inner layer (50, fig. 2 and paragraph 0024 of Bystricky), but fails to disclose that the second plug comprises a second non-woven polypropylene outer layer and a second non-woven polypropylene inner layer.
However, Faridi teaches that the inner and outer layers comprise a non-woven polypropylene material (see 104, figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 0011, 0021, 0023).
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 inner and outer layer of the first plug and the second plug of the modified Childers to include non-woven polypropylene as taught by Faridi for the purpose of providing a filtering layer that would provide the predictable result of filtering out contaminants and to provide a material that is inexpensive and provides the highest yield, and moreover, has the lowest specific gravity and the highest versatility (see paragraph 0023 of Faridi).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Childers discloses that the second heating element is disposed between the second non-woven polypropylene outer layer and the second non-woven polypropylene inner layer (see the modification above with Faridi and fig. 2 of Childers, after the modification, the heating element 20 of Bystricky would be placed between 10 and 50 of Bystricky which are modified to have non-woven polypropylene).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers (4,327,719) in view of Bystricky (2021/0321703) and Faridi (WO 2016/128844) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Sabin (11,096,438).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Childers fails to disclose that the second heating element comprises a second nichrome wire.
However, Sabin teaches that a heating element can be a carbon tape or a nichrome wire (see col 6, lines 43-49).
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 first heating element and the second heating element of the modified Childers to be a nichrome wire as taught by Sabin for the purpose of substituting one well-known heating element with another well-known heating element that would provide the predictable result of heating the air being provided to the user.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers (4,327,719) in view of Bystricky (2021/0321703), Faridi (WO 2016/128844), and Sabin (11,096,438) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Faridi (WO 2016/128844).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Childers discloses that layer 50 of Bystricky may comprises a filter layer (see paragraph 0024 of Bystricky, Bystricky discloses the inner layer 50 maybe be supplemented with a disposable insert such as a paper filter), but fails to disclose that the second plug further comprises a second non-woven polypropylene melt blown filter layer disposed between the second non-woven polypropylene outer layer and the second non-woven polypropylene inner layer.
However, Faridi teaches a non-woven polypropylene melt blown filter layer (102, fig. 1, paragraphs 0019, 0026 and 0029) coated with nano-layer (103) and is positioned between an inner and outer layers that are made of non-woven polypropylene (104, see paragraphs 0011, 0021, 0023).
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 filter layer of the first plug and the second plug the modified Childers to have the non-woven polypropylene melt blown filter layer being on one side of the inner layer (50 of Bystricky) and positioned between the outer and inner layers of the modified Childers as taught by Faridi for the purpose of providing a filter material layer that protect the user from particles in the nanometer size range or sub-micron size range (see paragraph 0019 of Faridi).
After the modification, the modified Childers discloses that the second non-woven polypropylene melt blown filter (102 and 103 Faridi) is disposed between the second non-woven polypropylene outer layer (10 of Bystricky modified to have non-woven polypropylene, see the modification with Faridi above) and the second non-woven polypropylene inner layer (50 of Bystricky modified to have non-woven polypropylene, see the modification with Faridi above, see fig. 1 of Faridi).
Claims 13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers (4,327,719) in view of Bystricky (2021/0321703) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tan (2023/0149747).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Childers fails to disclose that the pathogen inactivation system further comprises a controller in electrical communication with the first heating element, the controller configured to activate the first heating element and inactivate pathogens that are proximate the first heating element.
However, Tan teaches a power source (see paragraph 0081, see portable power bank or battery, supported by paragraphs 0076-0077 of the provisional application 63/013,948) and a pathogen inactivation system (114, 408, 412, 116, 118, 120, 122, 124, 126 and 128, fig. 4, paragraphs 0016-0017, 0070-0073) comprises a controller (122, 124, and 126, figs. 1 and 4) in electrical communication with a heating element (408, fig. 4), the controller configured to activate the heating element and inactivate pathogens that are proximate the heating element (see abstract, paragraphs 0047-0048 and 0077, see full disclosure of the provisional application 63/013,948, specifically, see paragraphs 0042, 0043, 0072-0073, 0078-0079 of the provisional application 63/013,948).
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 heating element of the modified Childers to have the controller and power source as taught by Tan for the purpose of providing adjustability and controllability (see paragraph 0047 of Tan).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Childers discloses a power source in electrical communication with the controller, wherein the power source is rechargeable (see claim 6 and paragraph 0081 of Tan, supported by paragraphs 0076-0077 of the provisional application 63/013,948 of Tan).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Childers discloses that the power source is portable (see claim 6 and paragraph 0081 of Tan, see portable power bank or battery, supported by paragraphs 0076-0077 of the provisional application 63/013,948 of Tan).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers (4,327,719) in view of Bystricky (2021/0321703) and Tan (2023/0149747) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Alami (2019/0216963).
Regarding claims 14-15, the modified Childers fails to disclose that the pathogen inactivation system further comprises a sensor in electrical communication with the controller, the sensor configured to provide at least one of bacterial or viral data to the controller, wherein the controller is configured to determine a pathogen amount exceeds a pre-determined pathogen threshold, and wherein the controller is configured to activate the first heating element in response to the determining the pathogen amount exceeds the pre-determined pathogen threshold.
However, Alami teaches a pathogen inactivation system further comprises a sensor (see bacteria sensor 400 in paragraphs 0009-0015 and 0029-0033) in electrical communication with the controller (control system 170, figs. 1-2, paragraphs 0028 and 0030), the sensor configured to provide at least one of bacterial or viral data to the controller, wherein the controller is configured to determine a pathogen amount exceeds a pre-determined pathogen threshold, and wherein the controller is configured to activate a sterilization system (500, paragraphs 0069-0070 and 0072) in response to the determining the pathogen amount exceeds the pre-determined pathogen threshold (see paragraphs 0013-0014, 0044-0050, 0069-0072).
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 controller and the heating element of the modified Childers to have the controller and sensor as taught by Alami for the purpose of providing an automatic system that would activate and control the heating element to sterilize the pathogen when an amount of pathogen exceed a threshold.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childers (4,327,719) in view of Bystricky (2021/0321703) as applied to claim 2 above, and alternatively in view of Kjellsson (2,162,583).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Childers discloses that the first plug and the second plug are uncoupled plugs (see fig. 1 of Childers, the first plug and the second plug are uncoupled plugs relative to the user’s nose, it is noted that the claimed limitation does not claim that the first plug is uncoupled from the second plug, rather the claim is claiming that the first plug and the second plug are uncoupled plugs).
However, if there is any doubt that the modified Childers discloses that the first plug and the second plug are uncoupled plugs.
Kjellsson teaches that nasal plugs (12) can be uncoupled plugs relative to each other (see the coupled version of the plugs in fig. 4 and the uncoupled plugs 12 in fig. 1, page 1, col 2, lines 49-55 and page 2, col 1, lines 1-22).
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 first plugs and the second plugs of the modified Childers to be uncoupled plugs relative to each other as taught by Kjellsson for the purpose of providing an alternative configuration that would allow the user to independently adjust each of the nose plugs, furthermore, the alternative configuration would perform equally well in providing sterilized air to the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
백인제 (KR 20110003151) is cited to show a nasal insert comprising a heater element for cold climate.
Liou (5,425,359) is cited to show a nose plug structure with filter.
Royce (4,601,287) is cited to show a heated mask comprising nichrome resistive heating wires.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TU A VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 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, 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.
/TU A VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights