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 .
This office action is in response to the request for continued examination and the amendments filed 2/25/26. As directed by the amendment, claims 1 and 7 have been amended, no claims have been added nor cancelled, and claims 14-19 remain withdrawn from consideration. As such, claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, and 13 are examined below.
Claim Interpretation
The claimed term ‘about’ (claims 1 and 7) are being interpreted in light of the disclosure to mean up to plus or minus 10% of the particular value (see para. 0012). As noted in the previous office action, the term ‘suitable binder’ is also interpreted in view of the disclosure and the newly amended claims which set forth the suitable binders.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busby et al. (2022/0118295) in view of Bailey et al. (10,486,001).
Regarding claim 1, Busby discloses a filter mask (see Fig. 1-3, abstract for example) which includes a treated fabric or textile including a textile or fabric material (see para. 0005, 0022, 0097, 0103 for example); a sugar alcohol component (see para. 0108 “sorbitol, xylitol”); a carbonate component (see para. 0110 “calcium carbonate”). Busby is silent as to including a suitable binder from the claimed group to affix the sugar alcohol and carbonate component to the textile/fabric; however, Bailey teaches a similar fabric/textile for a filter facemask which includes using a suitable binder to bind components together (see Bailey col. 2 ln. 51-62 and col. 5 ln. 56-67, casein). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Busby device’s fabric/textile to utilize a suitable binder, as taught by Bailey, as it is well-known in such a manufacturing art to utilize a binder in order to produce the composite product (i.e. the fabric/textile with alcohol component and carbonate component) and to also provide binding of a scent agent for the user (Bailey col. 2 ln. 51-62 and col. 5 ln. 56-67). The modified Busby device discloses ratios between various components (see Busby para. 0008-0011, 0025, 0067, 0105, 0107, 0135, 0147, 0161, 0167) , but is silent as to the ratio of the sugar alcohol component to the carbonate component being from about 15:85 to about 25:75; however, Busby teaches a broad ratio range of sugar alcohol component to carbonate component which encompasses the claimed range (see para. 0107 which discloses the plasticizer, the sugar alcohol component per para. 0108 provided from 0.5 to 30 wt % and para. 0110 which discloses processing aid, carbonate component, present in an amount from 0.05 to 10 wt % which encompasses the claimed ratio). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 200 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and it would have been obvious to try a ratio of sugar alcohol component to carbonate component, such as 0.5% sugar alcohol component and 2% carbonate component taught by Busby, which falls within the claimed ratio range, in order to provide desired material properties.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Busby device’s sugar alcohol is selected from the claimed group (see Busby para. 0108 “sorbitol, xylitol”).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Busby device’s textile/fabric material is woven or non-woven textile or fabric material (see Busby para. 0097).
Regarding claim 7, Busby discloses a facemask (see Fig. 1-3, abstract for example) which includes a facemask body (Fig. 1, layers 105, 110, 115 defining central/main body portion of the facemask, see para. 0031) including a plurality of sides (see Fig. 1-2 for example, upper and lower sides as well as right and left sides) and at least one layer of treated fabric or textile adapted for disposal over the nostrils and mouth of a wearer (layers 105, 110, 115, see Fig. 1 and para. 0032 for example), the textile/fabric layer including a textile or fabric material (see para. 0005, 0022, 0097, 0103 for example); a sugar alcohol component (see para. 0108 “sorbitol, xylitol”); a carbonate component (see para. 0110 “calcium carbonate”); first and second ear bands disposed on opposing sides of the facemask body and configured to maintain the plurality of sides of the body in substantial contact with the skin surface of a wearer so as to substantially prevent the passage of airborne material in the environment into the nose and mouth of the wearer except through the treated fabric or textile of the mask body (see Fig. 1-2, ear bands 135 and 140, see para. 0032). Busby is silent as to including a suitable binder from the claimed group to affix the sugar alcohol and carbonate component to the textile/fabric; however, Bailey teaches a similar fabric/textile for a filter facemask which includes using a suitable binder to bind components together (see Bailey col. 2 ln. 51-62 and col. 5 ln. 56-67, casein). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Busby device’s fabric/textile to utilize a suitable binder, as taught by Bailey, as it is well-known in such a manufacturing art to utilize a binder in order to produce the composite product (i.e. the fabric/textile with alcohol component and carbonate component) and to also provide binding of a scent agent for the user (Bailey col. 2 ln. 51-62 and col. 5 ln. 56-67). The modified Busby device discloses ratios between various components (see Busby para. 0008-0011, 0025, 0067, 0105, 0107, 0135, 0147, 0161, 0167) , but is silent as to the ratio of the sugar alcohol component to the carbonate component being from about 15:85 to about 25:75; however, Busby teaches a broad ratio range of sugar alcohol component to carbonate component which encompasses the claimed range (see para. 0107 which discloses the plasticizer, the sugar alcohol component per para. 0108 provided from 0.5 to 30 wt % and para. 0110 which discloses processing aid, carbonate component, present in an amount from 0.05 to 10 wt % which encompasses the claimed ratio). Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 200 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and it would have been obvious to try a ratio of sugar alcohol component to carbonate component, such as 0.5% sugar alcohol component and 2% carbonate component taught by Busby, which falls within the claimed ratio range, in order to provide desired material properties.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Busby device’s at least one layer of treated fabric or textile is porous (see Busby para. 0052 for example).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Busby device’s sugar alcohol is selected from the claimed group (see Busby para. 0108 “sorbitol, xylitol”).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Busby device’s textile/fabric material is woven or non-woven textile or fabric material (see Busby para. 0097).
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busby and Bailey as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Jasuja et al. (2020/0122071).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Busby device is silent as to the carbonate component being selected from the claimed group; however, Jasuja teaches a similar fabric/textile for a filter facemask including a carbonate component selected from the claimed group (see Jasuja para. 0050, 0094). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Busby device’s carbonate component to be sodium bicarbonate, as taught by Jasuja, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and would produce predictable results (providing such a filter material using sodium bicarbonate over sodium carbonate for example).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Busby device is silent as to the carbonate component being selected from the claimed group; however, Jasuja teaches a similar fabric/textile for a filter facemask including a carbonate component selected from the claimed group (see Jasuja para. 0050, 0094). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Busby device’s carbonate component to be sodium bicarbonate, as taught by Jasuja, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and would produce predictable results (providing such a filter material using sodium bicarbonate over sodium carbonate for example).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W STUART whose telephone number is (571)270-7490. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/COLIN W STUART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785