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 .
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.
Claim Status
This action is in response to application filed on June 19, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Statutory Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-20 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11979696 (reference application). This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claim 1,
reference application claim 2 corresponds to instant claim 2,
reference application claim 3 corresponds to instant claim 3,
reference application claim 4 corresponds to instant claim 4,
reference application claim 5 corresponds to instant claim 5,
reference application claim 6 corresponds to instant claim 6,
reference application claim 7 corresponds to instant claim 7,
reference application claim 19 corresponds to instant claim 8,
reference application claim 8 corresponds to instant claim 9,
reference application claim 9 corresponds to instant claim 10,
reference application claim 11 corresponds to instant claim 11,
reference application claim 10 corresponds to instant claim 12,
reference application claim 12 corresponds to instant claim 13,
reference application claim 13 corresponds to instant claim 14,
reference application claim 14 corresponds to instant claim 15,
reference application claim 15 corresponds to instant claim 16,
reference application claim 16 corresponds to instant claim 17,
reference application claim 17 corresponds to instant claim 18,
reference application claim 18 corresponds to instant claim 19,
reference application claim 20 corresponds to instant claim 20.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12368984 (reference application) respectively. Claims 1-20 are generally broader than the respective claims 1-17 in U.S. Patent No. 12368984. Broader claims in a later application constitute obvious double patenting of narrow claims in an issued patent. See In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214, USPQ 761, 766, and 767 (CCPA) (the court sustained an obvious double patenting rejection of generic claims in a continuation application over narrower species claims in an issued patent); In re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619, 622, and 623 (CCPA 1970) (generic application claim specifying "meat" is obvious double patenting of narrow patent claim specifying "pork").
Reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claim 1,
reference application claim 2 corresponds to instant claim 2,
reference application claim 3 corresponds to instant claim 3,
reference application claim 4 corresponds to instant claim 4,
reference application claim 2 corresponds to instant claim 5,
reference application claim 5 corresponds to instant claim 6,
reference application claim 6 corresponds to instant claim 7,
reference application claim 7 corresponds to instant claim 8,
reference application claim 8 corresponds to instant claim 9,
reference application claim 9 corresponds to instant claim 10,
reference application claim 10 corresponds to instant claim 11,
reference application claim 11 corresponds to instant claim 12,
reference application claim 9 corresponds to instant claim 13,
reference application claim 12 corresponds to instant claim 14,
reference application claim 13 corresponds to instant claim 15,
reference application claim 7 corresponds to instant claim 16,
reference application claim 14 corresponds to instant claim 17,
reference application claim 15 corresponds to instant claim 18,
reference application claim 16 corresponds to instant claim 19,
reference application claim 17 corresponds to instant claim 20.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11689833 (reference application) respectively. Claims 1-20 are generally broader than the respective claims 1-20 in U.S. Patent No. 11689833. Broader claims in a later application constitute obvious double patenting of narrow claims in an issued patent. See In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214, USPQ 761, 766, and 767 (CCPA) (the court sustained an obvious double patenting rejection of generic claims in a continuation application over narrower species claims in an issued patent); In re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619, 622, and 623 (CCPA 1970) (generic application claim specifying "meat" is obvious double patenting of narrow patent claim specifying "pork").
Reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claim 1,
reference application claim 2 corresponds to instant claim 2,
reference application claim 3 corresponds to instant claim 3,
reference application claim 4 corresponds to instant claim 4,
reference application claim 5 corresponds to instant claim 5,
reference application claim 6 corresponds to instant claim 6,
reference application claim 7 corresponds to instant claim 7,
reference application claim 8 corresponds to instant claim 8,
reference application claim 9 corresponds to instant claim 9,
reference application claim 10 corresponds to instant claim 10,
reference application claim 11 corresponds to instant claim 11,
reference application claim 12 corresponds to instant claim 12,
reference application claim 13 corresponds to instant claim 13,
reference application claim 14 corresponds to instant claim 14,
reference application claim 15 corresponds to instant claim 15,
reference application claim 16 corresponds to instant claim 16,
reference application claim 17 corresponds to instant claim 17,
reference application claim 18 corresponds to instant claim 18,
reference application claim 19 corresponds to instant claim 19,
reference application claim 20 corresponds to instant claim 20.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11343598 (reference application) respectively. Claims 1-20 are generally broader than the respective claims 1-20 in U.S. Patent No. 11343598. Broader claims in a later application constitute obvious double patenting of narrow claims in an issued patent. See In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214, USPQ 761, 766, and 767 (CCPA) (the court sustained an obvious double patenting rejection of generic claims in a continuation application over narrower species claims in an issued patent); In re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619, 622, and 623 (CCPA 1970) (generic application claim specifying "meat" is obvious double patenting of narrow patent claim specifying "pork").
Reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claim 1,
reference application claim 2 corresponds to instant claim 2,
reference application claim 3 corresponds to instant claim 3,
reference application claim 4 corresponds to instant claim 4,
reference application claim 5 corresponds to instant claim 5,
reference application claim 6 corresponds to instant claim 6,
reference application claim 7 corresponds to instant claim 7,
reference application claim 8 corresponds to instant claim 8,
reference application claim 9 corresponds to instant claim 9,
reference application claim 10 corresponds to instant claim 10,
reference application claim 11 corresponds to instant claim 11,
reference application claim 12 corresponds to instant claim 12,
reference application claim 13 corresponds to instant claim 13,
reference application claim 14 corresponds to instant claim 14,
reference application claim 15 corresponds to instant claim 15,
reference application claim 16 corresponds to instant claim 16,
reference application claim 17 corresponds to instant claim 17,
reference application claim 18 corresponds to instant claim 18,
reference application claim 19 corresponds to instant claim 19,
reference application claim 20 corresponds to instant claim 20.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6, 14, 16, 26-29, 36, 39, 41 and 51-53 of U.S. Patent No. 10542332 (reference application) respectively. Claims 1-20 are generally broader than the respective claims 1-4, 6, 14, 16, 26-29, 36, 39, 41 and 51-53 in U.S. Patent No. 10542332. Broader claims in a later application constitute obvious double patenting of narrow claims in an issued patent. See In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214, USPQ 761, 766, and 767 (CCPA) (the court sustained an obvious double patenting rejection of generic claims in a continuation application over narrower species claims in an issued patent); In re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619, 622, and 623 (CCPA 1970) (generic application claim specifying "meat" is obvious double patenting of narrow patent claim specifying "pork").
Reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claim 1,
reference application claim 2 corresponds to instant claim 2,
reference application claim 2 corresponds to instant claim 3,
reference application claim 3 corresponds to instant claim 4,
reference application claim 4 corresponds to instant claim 5,
reference application claim 14 corresponds to instant claim 6,
reference application claim 16 corresponds to instant claim 7,
reference application claim 6 corresponds to instant claim 8,
reference application claim 26 corresponds to instant claim 9,
reference application claim 27 corresponds to instant claim 10,
reference application claim 27 corresponds to instant claim 11,
reference application claim 28 corresponds to instant claim 12,
reference application claim 29 corresponds to instant claim 13,
reference application claim 39 corresponds to instant claim 14,
reference application claim 41 corresponds to instant claim 15,
reference application claim 36 corresponds to instant claim 16,
reference application claim 51 corresponds to instant claim 17,
reference application claim 52 corresponds to instant claim 18,
reference application claim 52 corresponds to instant claim 19,
reference application claim 53 corresponds to instant claim 20.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 9, 17, 19, 29-33, 37, 45 and 47 of U.S. Patent No. 9998804 (reference application) respectively. Claims 1-20 are generally broader than the respective claims 1-5, 9, 17, 19, 29-33, 37, 45 and 47 in U.S. Patent No. 9998804. Broader claims in a later application constitute obvious double patenting of narrow claims in an issued patent. See In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214, USPQ 761, 766, and 767 (CCPA) (the court sustained an obvious double patenting rejection of generic claims in a continuation application over narrower species claims in an issued patent); In re Vogel, 164 USPQ 619, 622, and 623 (CCPA 1970) (generic application claim specifying "meat" is obvious double patenting of narrow patent claim specifying "pork").
Reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claim 1,
reference application claim 2 corresponds to instant claim 2,
reference application claim 3 corresponds to instant claim 3,
reference application claim 4 corresponds to instant claim 4,
reference application claim 5 corresponds to instant claim 5,
reference application claim 17 corresponds to instant claim 6,
reference application claim 19 corresponds to instant claim 7,
reference application claim 9 corresponds to instant claim 8,
reference application claim 29 corresponds to instant claim 9,
reference application claim 30 corresponds to instant claim 10,
reference application claim 31 corresponds to instant claim 11,
reference application claim 32 corresponds to instant claim 12,
reference application claim 33 corresponds to instant claim 13,
reference application claim 45 corresponds to instant claim 14,
reference application claim 47 corresponds to instant claim 15,
reference application claim 37 corresponds to instant claim 16,
reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claim 17,
reference application claim 2 corresponds to instant claim 18,
reference application claim 3 corresponds to instant claim 19,
reference application claim 4 corresponds to instant claim 20.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites "FPPPE" which appears to be a typographical error. Claim 9 recites "at least at least" in line 2 which appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Prior Art
There is no prior art rejection at this time.
The closest prior art Richardson (US 7019652) discloses a respirator system for a worker in an environment with hazardous airborne contaminants capable of analyzing samples of gas from within the respirator and in the immediate area near the user and store data such as how protection factor varies with time and have a position sensor that allows a map of contamination levels with position to be built up as a user moves around a site.
Hamerly (US 20110227700) discloses determining conditions of components that are removably coupled to articles of personal protection equipment (PPE) by tracking the components against predetermined criteria and sensing the initial data to establish a predetermined criterion for the component in the actual working environment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior arts cited for the record but not used in Office Action, are listed in attached PTO-892.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nay Tun whose telephone number is (571)270-7939. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 9:00-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on (571) 270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Nay Tun/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights