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 the amendment filed 3/24/2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-3, 5-16, 18, 19, 23-25, 36, 38 and 41-46 have been amended. Claims 1-3, 5-19, 21-25, 36, 38 and 40-46 are pending in the instant application.
Applicant has amended the drawings and specification to address the objections to the drawings, which are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims to address most of the previously-indicated minor informalities and amended claim 23 to depend from claim 44; any previous claim objection not maintained below has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims to address the most of the previous rejections under 35 USC 112(a)/first paragraph; any previous claim rejection under 35 USC 112(a)/first paragraph not maintained/updated below has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims to address most of the previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b)/second paragraph; any previous rejection under 35 USC 112(b)/second paragraph not maintained/updated below has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 112(d)/fourth paragraph, Applicant argues at the top of page 15 of Remarks that the distance between the top and bottom margins of the main body “is the height of the main body” whereas claim 25 recites “a ratio…to the width of the main body,” not to the height, such that claims 1 and 25 are not conflict.
The Examiner respectfully notes that since claim 1 recites “width measured in a direction substantially parallel with the central longitudinal axis,” it was interpreted that “the width of the main body” in claim 25 was measured according to this same criterion, i.e. that the width of the main body is the distance of the body that is substantially parallel with the central axis, i.e. the distance between the top and bottom margins. For purposes of compact prosecution, claim 25 will be interpreted in light of Applicant’s Remarks (i.e. “the width of the main body” in claim 25 corresponds to a distance between the first and second side margins of the main body) such that the rejection under 35 USC 112(d)/fourth paragraph is withdrawn, but it is recommended that Applicant make the distinction between width versus length of the main body clearer in the claims for immediate understanding/clarity of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/24/2026 (hereinafter “Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 15-17 of Remarks that the Office’s interpretation of “main body” in the claims “find[s] those claim terms as generic components…has arbitrary assigned components from a prior art reference to correspond” and “ignores the specification and renders the term “main body” meaningless…it is clear that the main body margins and the rear panel margins are the same,” alleging that the interpretation “asserted by the Office Action is not consistent with the specification.”
The Examiner heartily disagrees that her interpretation of “main body” is generic or ignored the specification or renders the term meaningless; indeed, she asserts that her interpretation is keeping with the specification as originally filed, whereas it is the definition of “main body” asserted in Remarks, i.e. “the main body margins and the rear panel margins are the same,” that ignores the disclosed embodiment depicted in instant Figs. 6-9, 23, 24, 29 and 30, to which instant claim 1 (and thus its dependents) is directed, see e.g. instant Fig. 7 (modified below), where the side margins 34 of the main body 33 are not the same as the side margins 35 of the rear panel, and where, if the main portion had the same margins as the rear panel (e.g. instant Fig. 17) as asserted by Applicant, the lower side straps would not be joined at lower corner areas including at least a portion of the laterally extending arms as required by instant claim 1, i.e. as shown in instant Fig. 7.
PNG
media_image1.png
322
331
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As indicated on page 13 of the Office Action mailed 12/11/2025, the term “main body” was interpreted by the Examiner in light of the specification as applied across both disclosed embodiments Fig. 7 and Fig. 17 (where “main body 33” is depicted as having two different shapes and the disclosed main portions are said to only be “examples” of notional delineation per paras [0052] and [0067]) and according to the language within the claims themselves [no particular shape is recited in independent claim 1, and e.g. claim 3 as dependent on claim 1, which does not have explicit drawing support, could be reasonably envisioned by an artisan, see e.g. modification B below, and thus was not given a drawing objection despite that shape not being explicitly depicted], i.e. to mean “a notional delineation of [a large area of the central portion of] a rear panel that has top, bottom and side margins.” This is not a generic or meaningless definition, and it is only arbitrary in as far as the term “notional” used by the instant specification means “existing only in theory,” i.e. a “main body” as disclosed is simply a [large central] area [with top, bottom and side margins] that is theoretically delineated within the area of the rear panel. Applicant is welcome to claim the delineation of the main body portion more narrowly to define over the prior art, e.g. it is acknowledged that modifications B-D depicted below could be rendered non-applicable by requiring the main body to have/be drawn as a rectangular shape as supported by e.g. instant Fig. 7 and para [0052], but limitations from the specification are not read into the claims, and it is noted that the main body being a rectangle in claim 1 would conflict with e.g. dependent claim 3 and the full scope of dependent claim 11. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues on page 17 of Remarks that “Liu’s arms extend vertically and not laterally.”
The Examiner respectfully notes that claim 1 does not require any particular degree/angle of lateral extension, nor does claim 1 stipulate a relative point for assessing lateral extension that would require a different notional delineation of the main body from modifications A-D below [in comparison with claim 44]. In as far as Liu’s arms extend laterally from the main body (see modifications A-D below), they are considered to be laterally extending arms in accordance with instant claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues on page 17 of Remarks that “Liu has been subdivided without any basis in the prior art,” and “the act of subdividing Liu [is] evidence of hindsight bias.”
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The Examiner respectfully notes that per the instant specification as originally filed, a “main body” is simply a notional concept, as discussed above. Therefore, drawing such a notional main body on the rear panel of Liu is not without basis; it is simply how to meet the disclosed limitation in keeping with the instant specification and the instant claim language regarding the delineation/features of a main body.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues on page 17 of Remarks that “to the extent that Liu discloses any arms, they are not laterally extending…do not have ends with a width that is taken in a direction substantially parallel to the central longitudinal axis.”
The Examiner disagrees, as the arms and their width in the claimed direction are clearly shown in Liu Fig. 17a as seen in e.g. the modification A of the art rejections maintained below.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant alleges on pages 17-18 of Remarks that “the improved construction defined in the claims provided a nestable shape that can use an industry standard width of material while minimizing the amount of material that is wasted…the Office Action does not find a teaching of these elements within the secondary reference.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a nestable shape that minimizes waste) are not recited in rejected claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, in as far as claim 16 is understood to be directed to a nesting concept as asserted by Applicant, Dunn was applied in the rejection of claim 16 with regards to the known desirability to nest headgear components, and Applicant does not address or argue the teachings of Dunn in this regard. Therefore, the rejection of claim 16 in view of Dunn is maintained below.
Regarding claim 44, Applicant acknowledges on page 18 of Remarks that the Examiner pointed to Liu’s explicit teaching that the angles of the joint areas and straps can be adjusted [where changing the angle of the joint areas/arms would change the overall shape of the rear panel], but then Applicant argues that “[r]ather than identifying any teaching…the Office Action simply asserts that a change in shape is [obvious]…[t]his bald assertion is insufficient to meet the Office’s burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.”
First, the Examiner notes that KSR reasoning is not “bald assertion,” see MPEP 2141.I and 2144 (particularly subsections IV.B and VI.C), and second, the Examiner points to the explicit teachings of Liu and Ho--previously cited on page 36 of the Office Action mailed 12/11/2025 and maintained in the rejection of claim 44 below--regarding the obviousness of a change in angle/shape of upper arm connection regions as it applies to headgear as instantly claimed. The Examiner maintains that the prior art supported by KSR reasoning would have predictably led an artisan to the claimed invention for the obvious reasons maintained in the art rejections below.
Regarding claim 44, Applicant argues on page 18 of Remarks that “the image of Ho…ignores that the so-called “arms” in Ho are actually the full length of the top straps.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The base reference of Liu already discloses “non-full length” arms as areas for connecting (co-axially) to top straps, and Liu teaches that the angles of such joint connection areas can be adjusted as discussed above and in the art rejections below; therefore, it is the combination of Liu’s teachings with the teachings of Ho regarding desirable angles for top straps--including their co-axial connection areas with a rear panel, which correspond to Liu’s arms--that arrives at the claimed invention as maintained below.
Regarding claim 44, Applicant argues on page 18 of Remarks that “no reference has been found [in the 10 years since the filing of Liu] that has advanced the teachings of Liu to arrive at the inventive configuration…if the asserted modification were obvious…one would presume that the modification would have been created prior to the present application.”
To the extent that Applicant appears to be arguing that the claims should be allowed because they are not rejected under 35 USC 102, the Examiner reminds the Applicant that 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, see MPEP 2141. The Examiner has provided a rejection under 35 USC 103 with sufficient motivation/reasoning regarding the obviousness to an artisan at the time of invention to combine the prior art references to arrive at the instantly claimed invention, which establishes a prima facie case for obviousness; therefore, the burden is shifted to Applicant to provide additional evidence of nonobviousness. MPEP 2142 (emphasis added). The lack of a 102 is not evidence of nonobviousness, because there are many reasons why prior disclosure of an invention may be absent from the record, including market considerations and trade secrets. Applicant has provided no objective evidence that e.g. artisans have tried and failed to arrive at the claimed invention prior to the instant filing date/in the 10 years since the filing of Liu; therefore, the rejections are maintained/updated below.
Regarding claim 44, Applicant argues on pages 18-19 of Remarks “the Office Action resorts to cherry-picking…modifying the upwardly extending arms of Liu to be laterally-extending would result in a complete reconstruction of the headgear of Fig. 17a of Liu such that the headgear would no longer be useable in the manner described by Liu…a complete redesign would not have been obvious.”
The Examiner disagrees that adjusting the headgear of Liu to lower the extension angle of the arms as taught by Ho would render the headgear “no longer useable” or would not have been obvious. It was well within the skill of an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust upper headgear strap angles (and their associated rear panel connection areas) while ensuring that headgear is still functional thereafter, as demonstrated by Ho, as well as the prior art of Formica and (a different) Ho as cited in the Conclusion section of the Office Action mailed 12/11/2025, and the obvious reasons for doing so are discussed in the art rejection maintained below. Adjusting the angles of the arms of Liu would not require “a complete redesign;” it would only require slight adjustments to the lengths of the upper/crown straps of Liu to accommodate a larger angle between the arms.
Regarding claim 44, Applicant argues on pages 18-19 of Remarks that “the Office Action…ignores the teachings of Ho…ignore[s] the lower arms taught by Ho while selecting the upper arms of Ho…no basis in the prior art for such a selective approach.”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the angling of the top straps taught by Ho would direct forces more around the occipital bone rather than over it by providing a wider angle for encircling the occipital bone. Regarding Applicant’s assertion that the bottom straps of Ho were “ignored,” the bottom straps/arms of Ho were not “ignored;” they are simply not relevant to the teachings on which the rejection relies. It is noted that e.g. Liu Fig. 6b, bottom center versus bottom right, demonstrates that Liu conceived of using either angled bottom arms such that those taught by Ho OR the arrangement referenced in the rejection, and either would have been suitable to combine with the upper arms taught by Ho to achieve the obvious occipital accommodation; it just so happens that the bottom right embodiment more closely corresponds to Applicant’s disclosed shape, which is why it was selected for the rejection, i.e. for purposes of compact prosecution.
Applicant makes no further substantive arguments regarding the dependent claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, 11, 18, 38 and 44 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6 should read “a first end and a second endthat are opposed,” to make it clear that it is each pair of ends that are opposed, since two pairs are recited
Claim 1, fifth-to-last line should read “each of the respective lower corner areas”
Claim 1, third-to-last line should read “wherein the first end
Claim 1, second-to-last line should read “the first end
Claim 10, line 2 should read “of the main body”
Claim 11, line 2 should read “of the main body”
Claim 18, line 4 should read “connects” for continuity of language within the claim
Claim 18, line 8 should read “from one of the first side margin and the second side margin
Claim 38, line 3 should read “left side or the right side” because it understood that each lower strap is only configured to extend along one side of the head, that is, each lower strap first end does not extend along both the left and right side
Claim 44, fifth-to-last line should read “the first end of each” because it is understood to be directed to the first ends recited immediately prior thereto
Claim 44, third-to-last line should read “left side or the right side” because it understood that each lower strap is only configured to extend along one side of the head, that is, each lower strap first end does not extend along both the left and right side
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 36, claim 1 has been amended to recite first and second upper straps with first ends and opposite second ends that are no longer recited as directly attached to the rear panel, which are understood to correspond to the upper side straps 5A shown in e.g. instant Fig. 4. The second ends of these straps (at joins 29) are not “joined to a respective laterally extending arm of the rear panel;” rather, they are joined to a bifurcated region 27 of respective crown straps, which are, in turn, joined to the arms of the rear panel per instant para [0050] and Fig. 4. Therefore, claim 36 contains new matter in combination with amended claim 1. Moreover, it is noted that if claim 36 were amended to stipulate only “each lower side strap,” this would not be further limiting in view of the fourth-, fifth- and sixth-to-last lines of claim 1.
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 6-9 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.
Regarding claim 6, line 2 refers to the “the end margin” but two end margins are recited (one comprised by each of the two distal arm ends), such that it is unclear to which the latter part of claim 6 is referring. As best understood, for purposes of examination, claim 6 is intended to further limit both of the distal arm end margins, such that the claim could be amended to read “each end margin” to confirm this interpretation, and where, in combination with the understanding of claim 6 above, claims 7-9 should be concurrently amended to read “each end margin”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 17, 18, 21-25, 36, 38 and 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (WO 2015/043119 A1; hereinafter “Liu”; wherein the page citations below refer to the translation provided with this office action) in view of Bearne et al. (WO 2016/075658 A1; hereinafter “Bearne”).
Regarding claims 1 and 25, Liu discloses headgear (Fig. 17a) configured to be secured to a patient interface of a respiratory therapy system to mount the patient interface on a head of a user (page 1), the headgear comprising:
a first upper side straps and a second upper side strap (the left and right upper side straps extending to the left and right in Fig. 17a), each of the first upper side strap and the second upper side strap having a first end (the distal free ends to the right and left, respectively) and a second end (at the inner joints of the upper side straps), the first end and the second end [of each upper side strap, respectively] being opposed (Fig. 17a), the first end of each of the first upper side strap and the second upper side strap being configured to be secured to the patient interface and the first upper side strap configured to extend along a left side of the head of the user and the second upper side strap configured to extend along a right side of the head of the user (Fig. 17a-b in view of Fig. 21; page 1; second and third paras on page 12);
a rear panel (neck connector 1140) configured to engage a rear of the head of the user (Figs. 17a-b in view of Fig. 21), the rear panel connecting the first upper side strap and the second upper side strap [indirectly, via the strap portions extending from upper joints 1160] and a pair of lower side straps (lower straps 1150) (Fig. 17a; page 1, second and third paras on page 12); wherein:
the rear panel comprises a main body and a pair of laterally extending arms comprised by a single piece of material, the main body and the pair of laterally extending arm defining the rear panel (Fig. 17a, see e.g. modified A below; page 1, ninth full para on page 3, e.g. page 9, second and third paras on page 12);
PNG
media_image2.png
264
289
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the main body comprising:
a top margin and a base margin (top edge of the main body and bottom edge of the main body), the top margin and the base margin being opposed and spaced apart by a distance (distance between top and bottom edges, see e.g. Fig. 17a modified A, above),
a first side margin and a second side margin, the first side margin and the second side margin extending between the top margin and the base margin (right and left edges, see e.g. Fig. 17a modified A, above), and
a central longitudinal axis bisecting the top margin and the base margin (vertical line through the middle of the rectangle of Fig. 17a modified A, above);
each laterally extending arm including a portion that is inclined upwardly away from the main body and away from the central longitudinal axis, extending away from a respective side margin of the main body and comprising a distal arm end (upper portions of the arms, comprising upper joints 1160) (Fig. 17a, see modified A above),
each distal arm end having a width measured in a direction substantially parallel with the central longitudinal axis (Fig. 17a, see modified A above);
wherein the width of each distal arm end is between 30% to 60% of the distance between the top margin and the base margin of the main body and the ratio of the width of each distal arm end to the width of the main body portion [between the first margin and the second margin] is between 0.4 and 0.8:1 (Fig. 17a, where an arbitrarily-drawn/notional main body can be delineated such that the claimed relative dimensions are met, see e.g. Liu Fig. 17a modified A above, which suggests the lower end of the claimed range and where the top of the rectangle delineating the main body can be shifted lower to arrive at the upper end of the claimed range);
the pair of lower side straps (lower straps 1150) each formed separately from the rear panel, each of the pair of lower side straps having first (distal free end, to the right and left in Fig. 17a, respectively) and second opposed ends (at lower joints 1160), wherein the second end of each of the pair of lower side straps is joined to a respective lower corner area of the rear panel at a join (lower joint 1160), each of the respective lower corner area[s] including at least a portion of the respective laterally extending arm and the main body of the rear panel (Fig. 17a, see modified A above; second full para on page 11; second and third paras on page 12).
While Liu further teaches that the angles of the joints and straps can be adjusted (Figs. 6a-b and 22a-b; second full para on page 11: “the joint angle, the overlap area and the angle of the joint portion can be adjusted; bottom of page 8-top of page 9; the bottom of the third para on page 12: “connection joints…1160 can be adjusted according to the splicing or overlapping area, angle and direction of the connecting members”), Liu is silent regarding wherein [the] first ends of each of the first upper side strap and the second upper side strap and the first ends of each of the pair of lower side straps are inclined towards one another on each respective side of the headgear. However, Bearne teaches that it was known in the respiratory mask headgear art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in for the first ends (ends 1534B) (Figs. 14 and 22-23) of each of a first and second upper side strap (straps 1530B) and the first ends (ends 1536B) of each of a pair of lower side straps (straps 1532B) to be inclined towards one another on each respective side of the headgear (Figs. 14 and 22-23; paras [0260-261]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include wherein [the] first ends of each of the first upper side strap and the second upper side strap and the first ends of each of the pair of lower side straps are inclined towards one another on each respective side of the headgear as taught by Bearne, in order to provide the predictable results of orienting both the upper and lower straps to apply both a horizontal force vector and a vertical force vector to retain the patient interface against the face and create a better seal and lessen the need for large adjustments along the crown strap (Bearne para [0260]).
Regarding claim 2, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 1, wherein Liu further discloses wherein the first side margin and the second side margin of the main body of the rear panel are substantially parallel and substantially equal length such that the main body is substantially rectangular (Fig. 17a, see modified A above).
Regarding claim 3, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 1, wherein Liu further discloses wherein the first side margin and the second side margin of the main body of the rear panel are substantially equal length and are inclined relative to the base margin such that the main body is substantially trapezoidal, because the main body of Liu is fully capable of being delineated as claimed while still meeting the limitations of claim 1, see Liu Fig. 17a, modified B below.
PNG
media_image3.png
261
290
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 1, wherein Liu further discloses wherein each distal arm end is of substantially uniform width along its length, because the main body/arms of Liu are fully capable of being delineated as claimed while still meeting the limitations of claim 1, see Liu Fig. 17a, modified C below.
PNG
media_image4.png
276
255
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 1, wherein Liu discloses wherein each distal arm end comprises an end margin, [each] end margin being a substantially straight (Fig. 17a, where the margins at upper joints 1160 are straight, and see also the lower left image in Fig. 6b, as well as Fig. 4 and the last full para of page 7).
Regarding claim 8, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear or claim 6, wherein Liu discloses wherein [each] end margin is inclined relative to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 17a, where the margins at upper joints 1160 are angled downwardly, and see also the lower left image in Fig. 6b, as well as Fig. 4 and the last full para of page 7).
Regarding claim 10, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 3, wherein Liu discloses wherein the first side margin and the second side margin of [the] main body of the rear panel are inclined relative to the central longitudinal axis at a different angle to an angle of inclination of the laterally extending arms relative to the central longitudinal axis (Fig. 17a, see e.g. modified B above, where the side margins are angled inwardly whereas the arms are inclined outwardly, or modified D below, where the side margins have a steeper angle than the arms).
PNG
media_image5.png
256
257
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 3, wherein Liu discloses wherein the first side margin and the second side margin of [the] main body of the rear panel are inclined at an angle between 0° and 40° relative to the central longitudinal axis of the rear panel, because the sides of the main body of Liu are fully capable of being delineated as claimed while still meeting the limitations of claim 1, see e.g. Liu Fig. 17a, modified A-D above.
Regarding claim 17, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 3, wherein Liu discloses wherein each laterally extending arm extends from a respective side margin and the top margin of the main body (Fig. 17a, see e.g. modified A-B above).
Regarding claim 18, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 3, wherein Liu discloses wherein a central vertical plane connects mid points of the top margin and the base margin, and a central horizontal plane connecting mid points of the opposing side margins (Fig. 17a, see modified B above),
wherein each laterally extending arm extends from one of the pair of side margins and the top margin of the main body above the central horizontal plane and extends away from both the central horizontal pane and the central vertical plane (Fig. 17a, see modified B above).
Regarding claim 21, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 1, wherein Liu discloses wherein each laterally extending arm tapers along its length (Fig. 17a, see e.g. modified D above, where the arms taper outwardly along their length).
Regarding claim 22, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 1, wherein Liu discloses wherein each laterally extending arm flares along its length (Fig. 17a, see e.g. modified D above, where the arms flare inwardly along their length).
Regarding claim 24, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 1, wherein Liu discloses wherein the distal arm end of each laterally extending arm is stepped or tapered or waisted, so that the distal arm end is of narrower width than a remainder of the respective laterally extending arm (Fig. 17a, see modified D above).
Regarding claim 36, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 1, wherein Liu further discloses wherein the second end of each side strap [for purposes of rejecting this claim, the upper straps are considered to also include the strap portions above upper joins 1160] is joined to a respective laterally extending arm, respectively, of the rear panel via a join (joins 1160) (Liu Fig. 17a).
Regarding claim 38, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 1, wherein Liu discloses wherein the first end of each of the pair of lower side straps is configured to be secured to the patient interface and to extend along the left side [or] the right side of the head of the user (Fig. 17a in view of Fig. 21, page 1).
Regarding claim 40, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 1, wherein Liu discloses wherein the second end of each lower side strap is joined to the main body of the rear panel such that the pair of the lower side straps extend from the rear panel (Fig. 17a).
Regarding claim 41, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 40, wherein Liu discloses wherein the second end of each lower side strap is joined to the main body of the rear panel using an overlap weld (Fig. 17a; second full para on page 11: “lower straps are joined and/or overlapped by…welding…to form the joint portion”; second and third paras on page 12).
Regarding claim 42, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 1, wherein Liu discloses/teaches/suggests wherein each join is formed by a stitched, glued, or welded joint (Fig. 17a; second full para on page 11: “straps are joined and/or overlapped by…welding…to form the joint portion”; bottom of page 8: “method of connection includes, but is not limited to, sewing, welding…adhesive tape”; second and third paras on page 12).
Regarding claim 43, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 1, wherein Liu discloses wherein the lower corner area is located closer to the central longitudinal axis than the upper corner region on a same side of the headgear (Fig. 17a).
Claim(s) 7, 9, 12-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Bearne as applied to claims 1-3, 6 and 8 above, and further in view of Amarasinghe et al. (US 2016/0045700 A1; hereinafter “Amarasinghe”).
Regarding claim 7, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 6, but modified Liu is silent regarding wherein [each] end margin is parallel with the central longitudinal axis. However, Liu further teaches that the angles of the joints and straps can be adjusted (Figs. 6a-b and 22a-b; second full para on page 11: “the joint angle, the overlap area and the angle of the joint portion can be adjusted; bottom of page 8-top of page 9; the bottom of the third para on page 12: “connection joints…1160 can be adjusted according to the splicing or overlapping area, angle and direction of the connecting members”; see also Fig. 4 and the last full para of page 7), a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.IV.B, optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over the prior art, see MPEP § 2144.05, and Amarasinghe teaches that it was known in the respiratory mask headgear art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the angles (α/β) at which rear panel arm end margins (connection edge portions 4’/2’) extend to include wherein the end margin is parallel with the longitudinal axis (Fig. 6; paras [0174] and [0179] in view of para [0177]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Liu to include wherein the end margin is parallel with the longitudinal axis as taught by Amarasignhe, in order to provide a joint/end margin that is angled vertically as known in the art, to predictably create a desired distribution of the mask holding forces and/or degree of patient comfort (Amarasignhe paras [0045] and [0178]), particularly one that directs the forces more around the occipital bone rather than over it and that can be stamped out of a standard rectangular sheet of material with minimal cuts, e.g. two side cuts and a top cut, by providing a Y-shape as taught by Liu Fig. 17a but with more outwardly/horizontally-angled arms, e.g. similar to the lower arms taught by Amarasignhe (Fig. 6; para [0177]), see e.g. Liu+Ho as depicted on page 37 below.
Regarding claim 9, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 8, but modified Liu is silent regarding wherein [each] end margin is inclined relative to the central longitudinal axis at an angle between 0.1 and 20˚. However, Liu further teaches that the angles of the joints and straps can be adjusted (Figs. 6a-b and 22a-b; second full para on page 11: “the joint angle, the overlap area and the angle of the joint portion can be adjusted; bottom of page 8-top of page 9; the bottom of the third para on page 12: “connection joints…1160 can be adjusted according to the splicing or overlapping area, angle and direction of the connecting members”; see also Fig. 4 and the last full para of page 7), a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.IV.B, optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over the prior art, see MPEP § 2144.05, and Amarasinghe teaches that it was known in the respiratory mask headgear art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the angles (α/β) at which rear panel arm end margins (connection edge portions 4’/2’) extend to include wherein the end margin is inclined relative to the longitudinal axis at an angle between 0.1 and 20˚ (Fig. 6; paras [0174] and [0179] in view of para [0177]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Liu to include wherein the end margin is inclined relative to the longitudinal axis at an angle between 0.1 and 20˚ as taught by Amarasignhe, in order to provide a joint/end margin that is angled closer to vertical as known in the art, i.e. within a range as claimed to accommodate to provide manufacturing tolerances, to predictably create a desired distribution of the mask holding forces and/or degree of patient comfort (Amarasignhe paras [0045] and [0178]), particularly one that directs the forces more around the occipital bone rather than over it by providing a Y-shape as taught by Liu Fig. 17a but with more outwardly/horizontally-angled arms as discussed above regarding claim 7, and that maintains a substantial overlap of the arms with the straps by having them oriented at matching angles.
Regarding claim 12, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 1, but modified Liu is silent regarding wherein a longitudinal axis of each distal arm end is inclined at an angle greater than 40˚ and less than 90° relative to the central longitudinal axis. However, Liu further teaches that the angles of the joints and straps can be adjusted (Figs. 6a-b and 22a-b; second full para on page 11: “the joint angle, the overlap area and the angle of the joint portion can be adjusted; bottom of page 8-top of page 9; the bottom of the third para on page 12: “connection joints…1160 can be adjusted according to the splicing or overlapping area, angle and direction of the connecting members”), a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.IV.B, optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over the prior art, see MPEP § 2144.05, and Amarasinghe teaches that it was known in the respiratory mask headgear art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein a longitudinal axis of each distal arm end is inclined at an angle greater than 40˚ and less than 90° relative to the central longitudinal axis (Fig. 6; angle A1 in the range of about 30-40˚, para [0177], where 40˚ is within and thus anticipates the instant range). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Liu to include wherein a longitudinal axis of each distal arm end is inclined at an angle greater than 40˚ and less than 90° relative to the central longitudinal axis as taught by Amarasignhe, in order to provide arms that aligned with upper straps that are angled as known in the art, to predictably create a desired distribution of the mask holding forces and/or degree of patient comfort (Amarasignhe paras [0045] and [0178]), particularly one that directs the forces more around the occipital bone rather than over it by providing a Y-shape as taught by Liu Fig. 17a but with more outwardly/horizontally-angled arms as discussed above regarding claim 7 and that maintains a substantial overlap of the arms with the straps by having them oriented at matching angles.
Regarding claim 13, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 1, but modified Liu is silent regarding wherein an entirety of the rear panel is constrained within a notional rectangle of 100-300mm wide by 50-120mm tall, or 180-200mm wide by 75-95mm tall. However, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.IV.A, optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over the prior art, see MPEP § 2144.05, and Amarasinghe teaches that it was known in the respiratory mask headgear art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the entire rear panel is constrained within a notional rectangle of 82-90mm wide (L2) about by 42-[4]6mm tall (w2) (Fig. 6; para [0177]), such that it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Liu to include wherein the entire rear panel is constrained within a notional rectangle of 100-300mm wide by 50-120mm tall, or 180-200mm wide by 75-95mm tall through routine experimentation and as suggested by Amarasinghe, in order to appropriately size the rear panel for a given size of patient head and so that the rear panel does not cause excessive discomfort during use (Amarasinghe para [0178]), where dimensions as claimed, i.e. slightly larger than those explicitly disclosed by Amarasinghe, would have predictably provided a slightly larger rear panel for individuals with larger heads.
Regarding claim 14, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 2, wherein Liu discloses or suggests wherein the rear panel is defined by any one or more of:
a. a ratio of a length of a laterally extending arm to a length of the main body is between 0.65 and 0.8, length being measured in a direction perpendicular to the central longitudinal axis;
b. a ratio of a height of a laterally extending arm to a height of the main body, height being measured in a direction parallel to the central longitudinal axis, is between 1.1 and 1.6;
c. a ratio of the length of an entirety of the rear panel to the length of the main body is between 2.0 and 3.0;
d. a ratio of an area of a laterally extending arm to an area of the main body is between 0.3 and 0.5;
e. a ratio of an area of both laterally extending arms to the area of an entirety of the rear panel is between 0.3 and 0.7;
f. a ratio of a cut out or recess formed adjacent an upper margin of the rear panel as defined by an area between the upper margin of the rear panel and a notional horizontal line extending between and connecting two most upper points of the laterally extending arms, to an area of the entirety of the rear panel is between 0.3 and 0.5; or
g. the rear panel comprises between 30 and 70% of a notional rectangular area that surrounds and contacts all extreme points of the rear panel, because Liu Fig. 17a suggests these ratios and/or a main body/arms are fully capable of being delineated in the rear panel of Liu Fig. 17a such that the instant ratios are met, a change in size and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.IV.A&B, and/or optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over the prior art, see MPEP § 2144.05, where Amarasinghe teaches that it was known in the respiratory mask headgear art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to appropriately size a rear panel/its associated main body and arms (Fig. 6; para [0176-178]), such that it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Liu to include the claimed ratio(s) through routine experimentation and as taught by Amarasinghe, in order to appropriately size the rear panel/its associated main body and arms for a given size of patient head and so that the rear panel does not cause excessive discomfort during use (Amarasinghe para [0178]).
Regarding claim 15, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 3, wherein Liu discloses or suggests wherein the rear panel is defined by any one or more of the following ratios:
a. a total area of the rear panel is between 8000 and 13000mm2;
b. a ratio of an area of both laterally extending arms to an area of the main body of the rear panel is between 0.1 and 0.3; or
c. a ratio of an area of the main body to an entire area of the rear panel is between 0.75 and 1.0, because Liu Fig. 17a suggests these ratios and/or a main body/arms are fully capable of being delineated in the rear panel of Liu Fig. 17a such that the instant ratios are met, a change in size and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.IV.A&B, and/or optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over the prior art, see MPEP § 2144.05, where Amarasinghe teaches that it was known in the respiratory mask headgear art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to appropriately size a rear panel/its associated main body and arms (Fig. 6; para [0176-178]), such that it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Liu to include the claimed ratio(s) through routine experimentation and as taught by Amarasinghe, in order to appropriately size the rear panel/its associated main body and arms for a given size of patient head and so that the rear panel does not cause excessive discomfort during use (Amarasinghe para [0178]).
Regarding claim 19, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 3, wherein Liu discloses or suggests wherein each laterally extending arm extends away from one of the pair of side margins and the top margin of the main body, and an area of each laterally extending arm is less than 15% of the area of the main body because Liu Fig. 17a suggests these ratios and/or a main body/arms are fully capable of being delineated in the rear panel of Liu Fig. 17a such that the instant ratios are met, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.IV.A, and/or optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over the prior art, see MPEP § 2144.05, where Amarasinghe teaches that it was known in the respiratory mask headgear art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to appropriately size a rear panel/its associated main body and arms (Fig. 6; para [0176-178]), such that it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Liu to include the claimed ratio through routine experimentation and as taught by Amarasinghe, in order to appropriately size the rear panel/its associated main body and arms for a given size of patient head and so that the rear panel does not cause excessive discomfort during use (Amarasinghe para [0178]), and where smaller arms would predictably result in less material costs for the rear panel and/or less likelihood of undesired movement of the arms during manufacture as compared to bigger/longer arms, when maintaining the same sized main body.
Claim(s) 12 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Bearne as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ho (WO 2018/002169 A1; hereinafter “Ho”).
Regarding claim 12, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 1, but modified Liu is silent regarding wherein a longitudinal axis of each distal arm end is inclined at an angle greater than 40˚ and less than 90° relative to the central longitudinal axis. However, Liu further teaches that the angles of the joints and straps can be adjusted (Figs. 6a-b and 22a-b; second full para on page 11: “the joint angle, the overlap area and the angle of the joint portion can be adjusted; bottom of page 8-top of page 9; the bottom of the third para on page 12: “connection joints…1160 can be adjusted according to the splicing or overlapping area, angle and direction of the connecting members”), a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.IV.B, optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over the prior art, see MPEP § 2144.05, and Ho teaches that it was known in the respiratory mask headgear art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein a longitudinal axis of each distal arm end is inclined at an angle greater than 40˚ and less than 90° relative to the central longitudinal axis (Figs. 5-7; A2 = 155˚ in Fig. 6 and 110.8˚ in Fig. 7, which thus teaches wherein the longitudinal axis of each arm is inclined at an angle an angle of 77.5˚ or 55.4˚, respectively). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Liu to include wherein a longitudinal axis of each distal arm end is inclined at an angle greater than 40˚ and less than 90° relative to the central longitudinal axis as taught by Ho, in order to provide arms that are aligned with upper straps that are angled as known in the art, to predictably create a desired distribution of the mask holding forces for fit and comfort (Ho paras [05] and [45]), particularly one that directs the forces more around the occipital bone rather than over it by providing a Y-shape as taught by Liu Fig. 17a but with more outwardly-angled arms as taught by Ho (Fig. 7), see combination of Liu+Ho on page 37 below, and that maintains a substantial overlap of the arms with the straps by having them oriented at matching angles.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Bearne as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Dunn et al. (US 2014/0190486 A1; hereinafter “Dunn”).
Regarding claim 16, Liu in view of Bearne teaches the headgear of claim 1, but modified Liu is silent regarding where the rear panel is defined by w2=1/2 d1 - 1/2 c:
where w2=the width of each laterally extending arm as measured in a direction substantially parallel with the central longitudinal axis, d1= the distance between top margin and the base margin of the main body, and c = a clearance between adjacent rear panels required during manufacture of multiple rear panels on a sheet of material to ensure a satisfactory quality of cut. This claim is being treated as a product-by-process claim and is limited only by the structure implied by the formula. The formula implies that the product--the rear panel--is of a shape and size such that multiple rear panels can fit on one sheet and not overlap, and a change in shape and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.IV.A&B. The concept of nesting headgear elements to minimize waste when stamping out the components was already known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, see e.g. where Dunn teaches that it was known in the respiratory mask headgear art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein multiple headgear components are manufactured adjacent to one another with a desired clearance between elements (e.g. D3-D4 in Fig. 3-8) (see Figs. 3-6 to 3-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the invention for the rear panel of modified Liu to be of a shape/size such that multiple rear panels can fit on one sheet and not overlap, i.e. as defined by the instant formula, as taught by Dunn, for the purpose of allowing bulk manufacture with minimal waste/high yield (Dunn paras [0068], [0083] and [0089-92]).
Claim(s) 44-46 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Ho.
Regarding claim 44, Liu discloses headgear (Fig. 17a) configured to be secured to a patient interface of a respiratory therapy system and to mount the patient interface on the head of a user (page 1), the headgear comprising:
a rear panel (neck connector 1140) configured to engage a rear of the head of the user (Fig. 17a; page 1), the rear panel comprising:
a main body comprising an inverted trapezoidal shape having a top margin and a base margin, the top margin and the base margin being opposed to each other and spaced apart by a distance, the base margin being shorter than the top margin, a central longitudinal axis bisecting the top margin and base margin, opposed side margins each inclined towards the central longitudinal axis in a direction from the top margin to the base margin, the main body defining lower corners of the rear panel at an intersection of the base margin and each of the opposed side margins (see Fig. 17a modified E, below); and
PNG
media_image6.png
266
268
media_image6.png
Greyscale
a single pair of arms, each arm extending from the top margin, each arm being inclined upwardly away from the main body and away from the central longitudinal axis, and comprising a distal arm end defining an upper corner of the rear panel (see Fig. 17a modified E, above);
wherein the main body and the single pair of arms are comprised by a single piece of material with the main body and the single pair of laterally extending arms defining the rear panel (Fig. 17a, see e.g. modified E above; page 1, ninth full para on page 3, e.g. page 9, second and third paras on page 12);
a first upper side strap and a second upper side strap each formed separately from the rear panel (the left and right upper side straps extending to the left and right in Fig. 17a), each upper side strap having a first end (distal free ends to the right and left, respectively) and a second end (at the inner joints of the upper side straps) opposed ends, a first end of each upper side strap being configured to be secured to the patient interface and the first upper side strap configured to extend along a left side of the head of the user and the second upper side strap configured to extend along a right side of the head of the user (Fig. 17a-b in view of Fig. 21; page 1; second and third paras on page 12); and
a pair of lower side straps (lower straps 1150) each formed separately from the rear panel, each lower side strap having first (distal free end, to the right and left in Fig. 17a, respectively) and second (at lower joints 1160) opposed ends, [the] first end of each lower side strap being configured to be secured to the patient interface and to extend along the left side [or] the right side of the head of the user (page 1), wherein the second end of each of the lower side straps is joined to a respective one of the lower corners of the main body of the rear panel at a join (lower joints 1160) (Fig. 17a, see modified E above; second full para on page 11; second and third paras on page 12).
Liu is silent regarding wherein the arms are laterally extending arms extending from an intersection of the top margin and a respective side margin of the main body. However, Liu further teaches that the angles of the joints and straps can be adjusted (Figs. 6a-b and 22a-b; second full para on page 11: “the joint angle, the overlap area and the angle of the joint portion can be adjusted; bottom of page 8-top of page 9; the bottom of the third para on page 12: “connection joints…1160 can be adjusted according to the splicing or overlapping area, angle and direction of the connecting members”), a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04.IV.B, and Ho teaches that it was known in the respiratory mask headgear art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a rear panel with an inverted trapezoidal shaped main body to include wherein the upper arms are laterally extending arms extending from an intersection of the top margin and a respective side margin of the main body (see Ho Fig. modified below).
PNG
media_image7.png
179
237
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Liu to include wherein the arms are laterally extending arms extending from an intersection of the top margin and a respective side margin of the main body as taught by Ho (see combination Liu Fig. 17a and Ho Fig. 7 below), in order to provide arms that are aligned with upper straps that are angled as known in the art, to predictably create a desired distribution of the mask holding forces for fit and comfort (Ho paras [05] and [45]), particularly one that directs the forces more around the occipital bone rather than over it by providing a Y-shape as taught by Liu Fig. 17a but with more outwardly-angled arms as taught by Ho (Fig. 7 modified, above), and that maintains a substantial overlap of the arms with the straps by having them oriented at matching angles, see e.g. the combination below, where the upper portion of Ho has been overlapped onto the lower portion of Liu,.
PNG
media_image8.png
200
252
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 45, Liu in view of Ho teaches the headgear of claim 44, wherein Liu discloses/teaches/suggests wherein each join is formed by a stitched, glued, or welded joint (Fig. 17a; second full para on page 11: “straps are joined and/or overlapped by…welding…to form the joint portion”; bottom of page 8: “method of connection includes, but is not limited to, sewing, welding…adhesive tape”; second and third paras on page 12).
Regarding claim 46, Liu in view of Ho teaches the headgear of claim 44, wherein modified Liu teaches wherein each of the opposed side margins of the main body of the rear panel are inclined relative to the central longitudinal axis at a different angle to an angle of inclination of the laterally extending arms relative to the central longitudinal axis, because the combination of the Y-shape as taught by Liu Fig. 17a with more outwardly-angled arms as taught by Ho (Fig. 7 modified, above) teaches the construction discussed in claim 44 above, where the arms extend at an angle much closer to horizontal than the sides of the inverted trapezoid.
Regarding claim 23, Liu in view of Ho teaches the headgear of claim 44, wherein modified Liu teaches wherein each distal arm end is of substantially constant width along its length (Fig. 17a teaches that the areas occupied by upper joints 1160 have a substantially constant width along their short lengths, which would be maintained when combining Liu with Ho as pictured above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHRYN E DITMER whose telephone number is (571)270-5178. The examiner can normally be reached M 7:30a-3:30p, T/Th 8:30a-2:30p, W 11:30a-4:30p, F 1-4p ET.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/KATHRYN E DITMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights