DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 7/27/2026. Currently, claims 1, 5, 6, 10 and 13 are pending in the application. Claims 2-4, 7-9, 11 and 12 are cancelled by Applicant.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant should note that the amendment to the abstract filed 5/10/2026 was not entered (as indicated in the Advisory Action mailed 5/20/2026) and therefore, is not reviewed for examination.
The amendment filed 7/27/2026 fails to properly mark up the claims to indicate amendment(s) made to the claims. Per the MPEP, “All claims being currently amended must be presented with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version. The changes in any amended claim must be shown by strike-through (for deleted matter) or underlining (for added matter) with 2 exceptions: (1) for deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters, double brackets may be used (e.g., [[eroor]]); (2) if strike-through cannot be easily perceived (e.g., deletion of number “4” or certain punctuation marks), double brackets must be used (e.g., [[4]]).” See MPEP 714(II)(C.)(B).
Applicant should note that claims 2-4, 7-9, 11 and 12 are not provided with their proper status in the amendment filed 7/27/2026. Claims 2-4, 7-9, 11 and 12 are cancelled, as indicated in the Final Rejection mailed 2/9/2026. Claims 2-4, 7-9, 11 and 12 were cancelled by Applicant in the amendment filed 11/5/2025. Per the MPEP, “a canceled claim can be reinstated only by a subsequent amendment presenting the claim as a new claim with a new claim number” (see MPEP 714(II)(C.)).
Applicant should be sure that subsequent filings are compliant with the MPEP.
Response to Arguments
Applicant failed to amend the abstract to overcome the previous objection to the specification. The specification, therefore, remains objected to as detailed below.
Applicant failed to amend the specification and/or claim 1 to overcome all previous objections to claim 1. Claim 1, therefore, remains objected to as detailed below.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 5 is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claim 5. Applicant’s amendment to claim 6 is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claim 6.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 is not wholly sufficient to overcome all previous rejections of claims 1, 5, 6, 10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. Claims 1, 5, 6, 10 and 13, therefore, remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph as detailed below.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 13 is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claims 13 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 5 is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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 the abstract includes legal phraseology, which is not permitted. The term “comprises” should be removed from the abstract to avoid this error. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “the fine cover may have graphical imagery to directs an observer's gaze” should be amended to recite ---the fine cover may have graphical imagery to direct an observer's gaze--- in order to correct a grammatical error. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites “a first material to cover a first area of the facemask,” which is a claim limitation lacking proper antecedent basis in the specification; Applicant should amend the specification to include the cited language to avoid this error.
Claim 1 recites “a second material to cover a second area of the facemask,” which is a claim limitation lacking proper antecedent basis in the specification; Applicant should amend the specification to include the cited language to avoid this error.
Claim 6 limitation “covered underneath by” in line 5 of the claim should be amended to recite ---covered by--- in order to improve the clarity of the claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 limitation(s) “pivot means” uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10 and 13 are 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. Claim 1 recites “the pivot means reduces perimeter tension in the adjacent structural relationship to prevent energy deformation.” No support is provided for this claim limitation in Applicant’s specification as originally filed. While Applicant’s original disclosure teaches this functioning of the present invention, it does not teach the pivot means, specifically, being responsible for the function, as claimed. Claims 5, 6, 10 and 13 depend on claim 1 and therefore, include the same error.
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.
Claim 1 limitation “pivot means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 5, 6, 10 and 13 depend on claim 1 and therefore, include the same error.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward (US 4,628,927 A) in view of Gray et al. (US 9,901,128 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Ward teaches in Figures 1-8, the abstract, claim 1, column 1, lines 57-63, column 3, lines 14-17 and column 4, lines 9-13 and 52-53
a body (filter 15) comprising two or more components (center portion of filter 15 and outer portions 15A, 15B and 15C), each one of the two or more components (center portion of filter 15 and outer portions 15A, 15B and 15C) comprising:
at least one perimeter (filter outer edge 16 and fold lines shown in Figure 8) defining the components shape (as shown in Figure 8, the center portion of filter 15 and outer portions 15A, 15B and 15C are each defined by fold lines; Figure 8 teaches that each of the outer portions 15A, 15B and 15C is defined by filter outer edge 16);
a material that is light-weight and breathable (claim 1 teaches the device, which includes the filter 15, being a “breathing mask;” column 4, lines 52-53 teaches “the filter may be of felt or paper construction,” which are two light-weight materials; Applicant should note that what material is considered “light-weight” is dependent upon the material of comparison);
at least one (outer portion 15A) of the two or more components (center portion of filter 15 and outer portions 15A, 15B and 15C) is a first component (outer portion 15A) comprising a first material (material forming outer portion 15A) to cover a first area of (Figure 5 teaches the outer portion 15A covering a first area of the main mask member 1) the facemask (main mask member 1; column 3, lines 14-17 teaches “the reference numeral 1 indicates a main mask member shaped at its outer edge 1A to fit over the user's nose and jaw of the lower face in an airtight manner”);
at least one (center portion of filter 15) of the two or more components (center portion of filter 15 and outer portions 15A, 15B and 15C) is a second component (center portion of filter 15) comprising a second material (material forming center portion of filter 15) to cover a second area of (Figure 2 teaches the center portion of filter 15 covering a second, central portion of the main mask member 1) the facemask (main mask member 1) distal from (inasmuch as it is spatially removed from, as shown in Figures 2 and 5) the first area (Figure 5 teaches the outer portion 15A covering a first area of the main mask member 1);
the first component (outer portion 15A) and the second component (center portion of filter 15) are configured to isolate (inasmuch as the material forming outer portion 15A and the material forming center portion of filter 15 are physically separated in space, as shown in Figure 8) the first material (material forming outer portion 15A) from the second material (material forming center portion of filter 15), to prevent energy deformation transmission between components (as shown in Figure 8, the outer portion 15A and the center portion of filter 15 are connected via a fold line; therefore, the outer portion 15A and the center portion of filter 15 are each capable of pivoting about said fold line independently, without effecting the state of the other portion; thus, energy deformation transmission is prevented);
at least one attachment (inwardly folded liner 11) for securing the fine cover (filter 15) in place (column 4, lines 9-13 teaches “cutouts 17 permit filter portions to be turned inwardly to underlie and be positioned between the main body member and its inwardly folded liner 11 terminating along an edge 11C”);
at least a portion of the perimeter of the first component (outer portion 15A) is in an adjacent structural relationship with (Figure 8 teaches the perimeters of outer portion 15A and center portion of filter 15 connecting at a fold line) at least a portion of the perimeter of the second component (center portion of filter 15);
pivot means (fold line between outer portion 15A and the center portion of filter 15) in the adjacent structural relationship (Figure 8 teaches the perimeters of outer portion 15A and center portion of filter 15 connecting at a fold line) are operatively configured (as shown in Figure 8);
when the fine cover (filter 15) is removed (column 1, lines 57-63 teaches “the mesh member has an outer margin which overlies a marginal area of the main mask member and forms a bite therewith in which is removably confined the filter element” and “the continuous bite area of the mask member opens away from the filter when the mask is turned inside out to facilitate filter removal and replacement;” the abstract teaches “filter removal”), the pivot means (fold line between outer portion 15A and the center portion of filter 15) reduces perimeter tension in the adjacent structural relationship (Figure 8 teaches the perimeters of outer portion 15A and center portion of filter 15 connecting at a fold line) to prevent energy deformation (as shown in Figure 8, the outer portion 15A and the center portion of filter 15 are connected via a fold line; therefore, the outer portion 15A and the center portion of filter 15 are each capable of pivoting about said fold line independently, without effecting the perimeter tension of the other portion; thus, energy deformation transmission is prevented).
Ward does not teach that microbes are capable of adhering to the material; and adhered microbes cannot be dislodged from the material.
However, Gray et al. teaches in the abstract and column 5, lines 39-41 an analogous device (column 5, lines 39-41 teaches “the antimicrobial system described herein may be used in a typical face mask”) wherein microbes are capable of adhering to the material (the abstract teaches “the fabric has as a coating is created with on at least the outer surface and through at least 25% of the thickness of the fabric a moisture-sensitive antimicrobial composition, wherein the antimicrobial moisture-sensitive composition comprises an antimicrobially active compound and a carrier, the carrier by hydrophilic and able to absorb sufficient moisture from exhaled breath from the human as to maintain a wet surface on the carrier to which viral particles will adhere more strongly than to a dry surface of the same carrier”); and adhered microbes cannot be dislodged from the material (inasmuch as adhered microbes are secured in place and therefore, would not be dislodged).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the material of Ward to provide that microbes are capable of adhering to the material; and adhered microbes cannot be dislodged from the material as taught by Gray et al. because this element is known to function “for catching and holding the virus particles” to aid in “controlling the spread of pathogens and infectious diseases,” as Gray et al. teaches in column 1, lines 18-19 and column 16, lines 5-6.
Regarding claim 13, Ward and Gray et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1. Ward teaches in Figure 8, the abstract and column 1, lines 57-63 that when the fine cover (filter 15) is removed (column 1, lines 57-63 teaches “the mesh member has an outer margin which overlies a marginal area of the main mask member and forms a bite therewith in which is removably confined the filter element” and “the continuous bite area of the mask member opens away from the filter when the mask is turned inside out to facilitate filter removal and replacement;” the abstract teaches “filter removal”): the first component (outer portion 15A) pivots by the pivot means (fold line between outer portion 15A and the center portion of filter 15) over a top of (the outer portion 15A is capable of pivoting about the fold line between outer portion 15A and the center portion of filter 15 such that the outer portion 15A extends over a top surface of the center portion of filter 15) the second component (center portion of filter 15), and an outer surface of the second component (center portion of filter 15) is configured to be covered (the outer portion 15A is capable of pivoting about the fold line between outer portion 15A and the center portion of filter 15 such that the outer portion 15A covers an outer surface of the center portion of filter 15); the fine cover (filter 15) is closed (the outer portion 15A is capable of being pivoted about the fold line between outer portion 15A and the center portion of filter 15 and brought into contact with a surface of the center portion of filter 15 to close the filter 15).
Ward does not teach does not teach that adhered microbes cannot be dislodged from the outer surface of the second component.
However, Gray et al. teaches in the abstract and column 5, lines 39-41 an analogous device (column 5, lines 39-41 teaches “the antimicrobial system described herein may be used in a typical face mask”) wherein adhered microbes (the abstract teaches “the fabric has as a coating is created with on at least the outer surface and through at least 25% of the thickness of the fabric a moisture-sensitive antimicrobial composition, wherein the antimicrobial moisture-sensitive composition comprises an antimicrobially active compound and a carrier, the carrier by hydrophilic and able to absorb sufficient moisture from exhaled breath from the human as to maintain a wet surface on the carrier to which viral particles will adhere more strongly than to a dry surface of the same carrier”) cannot be dislodged from the outer surface of the component (inasmuch as adhered microbes are secured in place and therefore, would not be dislodged from the outer surface).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the second component of Ward as modified by to provide that adhered microbes cannot be dislodged from the outer surface of the second component as taught by Gray et al. because this element is known to function “for catching and holding the virus particles” to aid in “controlling the spread of pathogens and infectious diseases,” as Gray et al. teaches in column 1, lines 18-19 and column 16, lines 5-6.
Regarding claim 6, Ward and Gray et al. teach the apparatus of claims 1 and 13. Ward teaches in Figure 8, the abstract and column 1, lines 57-63 that when the fine cover (filter 15) is removed (column 1, lines 57-63 teaches “the mesh member has an outer margin which overlies a marginal area of the main mask member and forms a bite therewith in which is removably confined the filter element” and “the continuous bite area of the mask member opens away from the filter when the mask is turned inside out to facilitate filter removal and replacement;” the abstract teaches “filter removal”): the fine cover (filter 15) is closed when at least the first component (outer portion 15A) has a first outer surface facing inward (the outer portion 15A is capable of being pivoted about the fold line between outer portion 15A and the center portion of filter 15 such that a first outer surface of the outer portion 15A is facing inward toward an outer surface of the center portion of filter 15 and brought into contact with a surface of the center portion of filter 15 to close the filter 15), and at least the second component (center portion of filter 15) has the outer surface that is covered underneath by the first outer surface (the outer portion 15A is capable of being pivoted about the fold line between outer portion 15A and the center portion of filter 15 such that a first outer surface of the outer portion 15A is facing inward toward an outer surface of the center portion of filter 15 and brought into contact with a surface of the center portion of filter 15 to close the filter 15); the closed fine cover (filter 15) can be placed in a bag for disposal or cleaning (the filter 15 is capable of being placed in a bag for disposal or cleaning when closed as discussed above).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward (US 4,628,927 A), in view of Gray et al. (US 9,901,128 B2) and further in view of Houde (WO 2017/184798 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ward and Gray et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1. Ward and Gray et al. do not teach wherein: at least one of the two or more components, at the material surrounded by the at least one perimeter: at least a portion of the material includes a heat reflective layer or liner adapted to prevent temperature increase of the wearer's face.
However, Houde (facing the same challenge of heat accumulation in a facial covering) teaches an analogous fine cover (face mask 100, Fig. 1, p. 20 para. 2, it is capable of being placed on top of another face mask due to the body portion 102 and the tie straps 104 to enable tying of the face mask 100 to a head of an individual and would secure it in place) comprising: a body (body portion 102, Fig. 1, p. 20 para. 2) comprising two or more components (please see Annotated Fig. C below adapted from Fig. 1, it shows two components on the one side of the face mask 100) each comprising: one or more perimeters defining the component's shape (Annotated Fig. C below shows the perimeters of the two components on the one side of the face mask 100); at least one of the plurality of components, at the material surrounded by the at least one perimeter: at least a portion of the material includes a heat reflective layer or liner adapted to prevent temperature increase of the wearer's face (p. 50 para. 2 and p. 51 para. 1 states that thermally conductive materials or structures are incorporated into one or more layers of the material used to form the face mask where the materials can be metal particles, fibers, or inks including aluminum, gold, copper, silver, etc., conductive polymers, carbon, or any other material that can be used to increase thermal conductivity can be incorporated, p. 51 para. 1 also states the use of such materials can facilitate the dissipation of heat from the inside of the face mask to the outside preventing the buildup of heat, thus this is incorporated in the body portion 102 and thus the components).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to have provided the fine cover disclosed by Ward as modified by Gray et al. with the heat reflective layer or liner adapted to prevent temperature increase of the wearer's face as taught by Houde in order to provide an improved fine cover with a reflective layer or liner adapted to prevent temperature increase of the wearer's face in order to prevent the buildup of heat in the dead space and minimizing user discomfort (Houde, p. 51 para. 1), thus mitigating the amount of people not complying with PPE protocols (Houde, p. 3 para. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
690
795
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward (US 4,628,927 A), in view of Gray et al. (US 9,901,128 B2) and further in view of Grinvald et al. (US 10,974,084 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Ward and Gray et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1. Ward and Gray et al. do not teach that the material is selected from the group consisting of: microfiber, cellulose fiber, modal fabric, micromodal fabric, silk, linen, mesh, tricot, soutache, cotton, hemp, synthetic fibers, and combinations thereof.
However, Grinvald et al. teaches in column 5, lines 56-58 an analogous device wherein the material is selected from the group consisting of: microfiber, cellulose fiber, modal fabric, micromodal fabric, silk, linen, mesh, tricot, soutache, cotton, hemp, synthetic fibers, and combinations thereof (column 5, lines 56-58 teaches “filter 13 comprises at least a non-woven layer, a meltblown cloth layer, an electrostatic cotton layer, and a bactericidal layer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to modify the material of Ward as modified by Gray et al. to be selected from the group consisting of: microfiber, cellulose fiber, modal fabric, micromodal fabric, silk, linen, mesh, tricot, soutache, cotton, hemp, synthetic fibers, and combinations thereof as taught by Grinvald et al. because this element is known in the art to be a suitable filtration material for a filter, as Grinvald et al. teaches in column 5, lines 56-58.
Conclusion
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at www.uspto.gov/FindPatentAttorney.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA H FISHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6:00AM-4:00PM 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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at (571) 270-5237. 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.
/VICTORIA HICKS FISHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 8/6/2026
Prosecution Insights