DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Response to Election/Restriction filed 3/14/2024. Currently, claims 1-21 are pending in the application. Claims 12-21 are withdrawn and not examined at this point.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 3/14/2024 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/14/2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the communication device (see claims 3 and 4) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims are not numbered properly. MPEP 714 requires that “claims must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claim previously presented.” Misnumbered claims 5-20 (including a duplicate of claim 5) have been renumbered 5-21, respectively. Renumbered claims 7-9 are interpreted to depend on renumbered claim 5.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “communication device” in claims 3 and 4.
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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the mask" in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-11 depend on clam 1 and therefore, include the same error.
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the mask" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 4-9 depend on clam 3 and therefore, include the same error.
Claim limitation “communication device” (see claims 3 and 4) 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, claims 3 and 4 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 5-9 depend on claims 3 and 4 and therefore, are also rejected.
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.
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites “a communication device in communication with the electronic device.” It is unclear if this claimed “device” is the same as, or distinct from, the “another device” that is previously recited in claim 1 (upon which claim 3 depends) to interact with the electronic device. Claims 4-9 depend on claim 3 and therefore, include the same error.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the adjustable material" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 depends on claim 8 and therefore, includes the same error.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sullivan et al. (US 2019/0028697).
In regards to claim 1, Sullivan et al. teaches in Figures 1-4 and 7, [0027-0029] and [0046] a material (mask unit 14, face shroud 16 and face-contacting edges and surfaces 22) adapted to cover at least a nose and mouth of a user ([0027] teaches “a face shroud 16 which is sized and shaped to fit perfectly to the user's face;” [0028] teaches “the edges and surfaces 22 of face shroud 16 which contact the user's face and nose during use;” the face includes the nose and mouth; mask unit 14/face shroud 16/face-contacting edges and surfaces 22 is capable of being positioned on top of a user’s nose and mouth to provide a material covering therefore) wearing the mask (mask unit 14, face shroud 16 and face-contacting edges and surfaces 22) and which substantially prevents aspirants from traversing the user's nose and mouth through the material (mask unit 14/face shroud 16/face-contacting edges and surfaces 22 provides a physical material barrier that, when positioned over a user’s nose and mouth, would prevent traversal of aspirants; mask unit 14/face shroud 16/face-contacting edges and surfaces 22 is capable of covering the user’s nose and mouth, depending on the size or anatomical characteristics of an individual user); an electronic device (viewer unit 12; [0027] teaches “the delicate optics, electronics and mechanisms are contained in a viewing unit 12”) secured to ([0029] teaches that “viewing unit 12 is connected to mask unit 14;” also shown in Figure 1) the material (mask unit 14, face shroud 16 and face-contacting edges and surfaces 22) that allows the user to interact with another device ([0046] teaches that the viewer unit 12 can interact with “smart devices” via WiFi and Bluetooth).
In regards to claim 2, Sullivan et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Sullivan et al. teaches in Figures 1-3 and [0027-0028] an adjustable material securing device (straps 18; [0027] teaches that the tightness of straps 18 can be adjusted using tightening mechanism 20) affixed to (as shown in Figures 1-3; [0028] teaches “straps 18 are attached to appropriate locations of face shroud 16”) the material (mask unit 14, face shroud 16 and face-contacting edges and surfaces 22) to allow the user to secure ([0027] teaches “straps 18 which are sized and shaped to secure mask unit 14 snuggly to the user's head”) the mask (mask unit 14, face shroud 16 and face-contacting edges and surfaces 22) to the user’s face so that the mask (mask unit 14, face shroud 16 and face-contacting edges and surfaces 22) securely covers the user’s nose and mouth (mask unit 14/face shroud 16/face-contacting edges and surfaces 22 is capable of covering the user’s nose and mouth, depending on the size or anatomical characteristics of an individual user).
In regards to claim 3, Sullivan et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 2. Sullivan et al. teaches in [0046] a communication device (“onboard WiFi and Bluetooth circuits” taught in [0046]) in communication with (taught in [0046] to be “onboard” the viewer unit 12) the electronic device (viewer unit 12) allowing the user of the mask (mask unit 14, face shroud 16 and face-contacting edges and surfaces 22) to communicate data to ([0046] teaches that the viewer unit 12 is configured such that “onboard WiFi and Bluetooth circuits may be used to receive or process payment through the use of smart devices”) a reciprocal device (“smart devices” taught in [0046]).
In regards to claim 4, Sullivan et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 1-3. Sullivan et al. teaches in [0046] that the communication device (“onboard WiFi and Bluetooth circuits” taught in [0046]) is one of a 3GPP device, a near-field communication device, a WIFI device and a Bluetooth device (“onboard WiFi and Bluetooth circuits” taught in [0046]).
In regards to claim 5, Sullivan et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 1-4. Sullivan et al. teaches in [0046] that the reciprocal device (“smart devices” taught in [0046]) is a payment device ([0046] teaches that the smart devices “may be used to receive or process payment”).
In regards to claim 7, Sullivan et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 1-5. Sullivan et al. teaches in [0028] that the material (mask unit 14, face shroud 16 and face-contacting edges and surfaces 22) is one of a soft, pliable material ([0028] teaches that the face-contacting edges and surfaces 22 are “made from or include a pliant, comfortable [and thus, understood to be soft], durable and easily cleanable material (such as a closed-cell foam-rubber, with a firm surface skin) so that when donned on a user's face, the fit is comfortable and provides a lightproof seal between it and the user's face”), paper, cloth, and a rigid material, plastic.
In regards to claim 8, Sullivan et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 1-5 and 7. Sullivan et al. teaches in [0027] and Figures 1-3 that the adjustable material (straps 18) is one of a loop, strap ([0027] teaches “straps 18”), band (Figures 1-3 teach the straps 18 being structured as bands) and a plastic material.
In regards to claim 11, Sullivan et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Sullivan et al. teaches in Figure 7, [0049] and [0054-0055] that the electronic device (viewer unit 12) is adapted to store ([0054] teaches that interpupillary distance information is stored in main memory 102; [0049] teaches that “viewing unit 12 includes a microprocessor 100, a main memory 102 connected to microprocessor 100, and a battery 104 connected to all devices that require power”) user information (“interpupillary distance information” taught in [0054]) and to transfer the user information (“interpupillary distance information” taught in [0054]) to a network in a touch-free manner (Figure 7 teaches wireless communication of this information from main memory 102 to microprocessor 100; also taught in [0054]).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US 2019/0028697) in view of Choi (US 2017/0206532).
In regards to claim 6, Sullivan et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 1-5. Sullivan et al. does not teach that the electronic device is one of an electronic semiconductor chip adapted to interact with the payment device, a small, printed circuit board adapted to interact with the payment device, a flexible printed circuit board adapted to interact with the payment device, a readable bar code, a quick code and a quick response (QR) code.
However, Choi teaches in claim 5 an analogous device wherein the electronic device (claim 5 teaches a physical product that includes an electronic product, QR code and virtual reality (VR)) is one of an electronic semiconductor chip adapted to interact with the payment device, a small, printed circuit board adapted to interact with the payment device, a flexible printed circuit board adapted to interact with the payment device, a readable bar code, a quick code and a quick response (QR) code (claim 5 teaches a physical product that includes an electronic product, QR code and virtual reality (VR)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the electronic device of Sullivan et al. to further include one of an electronic semiconductor chip adapted to interact with the payment device, a small, printed circuit board adapted to interact with the payment device, a flexible printed circuit board adapted to interact with the payment device, a readable bar code, a quick code and a quick response (QR) code as taught by Choi because this element is known to provide the electronic device with a unique identification code (UID) “to provide an electronic product-related information registration, verification, and management system and method” that “may be advantageously accessed and/or managed by at least one authorized inquirer through use of the UID,” as Choi teaches in claim 8 and [0020].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US 2019/0028697) in view of Kudchadkar et al. (US 2021/0288716).
In regards to claim 9, Sullivan et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 1-5, 7 and 8. Sullivan et al. does not teach that the electronic device comprises a logo having digital circuitry contained therein to interact with the payment device.
However, Kudchadkar et al. teaches in Figures 5 and 6 and [0036-0038] an analogous payment device wherein the electronic device (“payment dongle or secure card reader”) comprises a logo having digital circuitry contained therein ([0038] teaches “the device can be a payment dongle with a top layer of diffusing glass or plastic printed with an inverse silkscreen of a logo, and the second layer can be a printed circuit board or silicon mesh with LEDs that can be used to illuminate the logo as a channel for visible light communication”) to interact with (see [0036]) the payment device (credit card 510).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the electronic device of Sullivan et al. to further include a logo having digital circuitry contained therein to interact with the payment device as taught by Kudchadkar et al. because this element is known to enable the electronic device to provide “visible light communication” that can be used for verification purposes, as Kudchadkar et al. teaches in [0004] and [0038].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. (US 2019/0028697) in view of Spencer, II (US 2016/0063474).
In regards to claim 10, Sullivan et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Sullivan et al. does not teach that the material is a scarf.
However, Spencer, II teaches in [0095] and claim 5 an analogous device wherein the material (“wearable” taught in [0095] and claim 5) is a scarf ([0095] and claim 5 teach the wearable including “scarves” and “adaptive/optics/immersive Virtual Reality (VR)”).
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 Sullivan et al. to further include a scarf as taught by Spencer, II because this element is known to be a “gaming wearable(s) to improve game play,” as Spencer, II teaches in [0096].
Conclusion
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 on (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 3/21/2024