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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-10, and 23. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claim 1-2, 5-7, 9-15, 17-20, and 23-24 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. Claims 21-22 have been canceled and claims 25-26 have been added. Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-15, 17-20, 23-26 remain pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-15, 17-20, 23-26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitations “said left cheek unit” and “said right cheek unit” in line 20. These limitations should read --said left unitary cheek unit-- and --said right unitary cheek unit--, respectively, to maintain consistent terminology.
Dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-20, 23-24, and 26 all begin “The respirator mask of claim”. This should read --The two-way respirator mask of claim-- to maintain consistent terminology with the respective independent claims.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the lattice” in line 13. This should read --the rigid lattice-- to maintain consistent terminology.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the lattice” in line 10. This should read --the rigid lattice-- to maintain consistent terminology.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chelak (US 20240252852 A1), in view of Grinvald (US 10974084 B1), in view of Nguyen (US 20240008568 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Chelak discloses a two-way (par. 0027 ln 1-4, airflow into and out of the mask passes through the filter) respirator mask (Fig. 1A, respirator mask 100; par. 0024), comprising: a face portion (Fig. C, annotated below) including an inner seal (Fig. 1A and 1B, 310 seals against the face; par. 0026 ln 7-10) and an outer housing (Fig. 1A, mask body 200; par. 0024 ln 4-6; see also Fig. C, annotated below); and a filter container attached to said face portion (Fig. 1A, filter opening 220; par. 0024 ln 10-14), said filter container configured to receive a filter cannister (Fig. 4A and 4B, filter 400; par. 0029); wherein said filter container further includes an airway through which air may be inhaled through the filter cannister and exhaled through the filter cannister (par. 0027 ln 1-4, airflow into and out of the mask passes through the filter when the user breathes), wherein, said outer housing includes a cheek portion that extends away from said filter container (annotated Fig. C below shows cheek portion extending away from filter container 220) and is at least partially separated from said inner seal by a gap (annotated Fig. B below shows a gap between cheek portion and inner seal), wherein said cheek portion includes an attachment interface including a plurality of fixed holes (Fig. 1A and 1B, slots 250) and configured to receive at least one of removable fittings or straps (par. 0025 ln 9-13).
PNG
media_image1.png
423
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure C, adapted from Figure 1A of Chelak
PNG
media_image2.png
441
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B, adapted from Fig. 1B of Chelak
Chelak does not disclose the filter container including a removable cover through which air may be inhaled and exhaled.
Grinvald teaches a two-way respirator mask (abstract) comprising filter container (Fig. 1, filter base 14 and filter cover 12 together contain filter 13; col 3 ln 27-30) including a removable cover (Fig. 1, filter cover 12; col. 1 ln 62-65) through which air may be inhaled and exhaled (Fig. 1, filter cover 12 includes vent plate 16; col. 2 ln 14-25) for the purpose of protecting and securing the filter (col. 3 ln 41-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filter container of Chelak to include a removable cover as taught by Grinvald for the purpose of protecting and securing the filter (See Grinvald: col. 3 ln 41-45).
The modified Chelak does not disclose the attachment interface including a rigid lattice wherein the plurality of fixed holes is connected by the lattice.
Nguyen teaches an attachment interface including a rigid lattice with a plurality of fixed holes (holder 205; Fig. 6, 9).
The substitution of one known element for another would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention since the substitution of one known attachment interface for another would have yielded predictable results, namely, the provision of an interface for attaching a mask strap. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the attachment interface of Chelak as taught by Nguyen since the courts have held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 11 in the instant application have not been rejected using prior art because no references, or reasonable combination thereof, could be found which disclose, or suggest, all the features of claims 1 and 11, and dependents therein.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the subject matter that was not found is “a left unitary cheek unit including at least one of said first holes and at least two of said second holes and a right unitary cheek unit including at least one of said first holes and at least two of said second holes, and said left cheek unit and said right cheek unit are each surrounded by said outer housing.” Chelak discloses a unitary cheek unit with multiple holes. However, Chelak does not disclose the cheek unit is surrounded by the outer housing. Lurie teaches holes surrounded by an outer housing, but does not disclose a unitary cheek unit with multiple holes. There was no teaching or motivation found in the prior art to make this modification.
Regarding claim 11, the subject matter that was not found is “said attachment interface includes a rigid lattice and a plurality of fixed holes disposed about the lattice and configured to receive at least one of removable fittings or straps, and wherein said attachment interface is surrounded by said outer housing.” Nguyen discloses an attachment interface including a rigid lattice with a plurality of fixed holes. However, Nguyen does not disclose the attachment interface is surrounded by an outer housing. Lurie teaches an attachment interface with holes surrounded by an outer housing, but does not disclose the holes are disposed about a rigid lattice. There was no teaching or motivation found in the prior art to make this modification.
Claim 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 26, Nguyen teaches a left attachment interface including a plurality of said fixed holes formed therein and a right attachment interface including a plurality of said fixed holes formed therein (holder 205 on left and right; Fig. 6, 9). However, Nguyen does not teach “each of the left attachment interface and the right attachment interface being surrounded by said outer housing”. Lurie teaches an attachment interface with holes surrounded by an outer housing. However, there was no teaching or motivation found in the prior art to make this modification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY RHEE whose telephone number is (703)756-5954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/K.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785