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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: as to claim 1, instances, that recites “… in the usage mode which the mask is attached to a head of the user”, the office suggests reciting, “… in the usage mode which the mask is configured to be attached to a head of the user”, …. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang (CN 205962946U).
With respect to claim 1, Liang discloses a mask (as shown in figs.1-2) comprising:
a mask main body (1, fig.1) for preventing exposure of a mouth of a user (during use); and
a nose cover portion (3, fig.1) protruding from the mask main body (1) to prevent exposure of an external nostril of the user (during use),
wherein the nose cover portion (3) is foldable (as shown in fig.2) and ([Page 1] 2nd paragraph, a non-woven fabric mask of foldable nose] with respect to the mask main body (1) at a boundary (as seen in the reproduced images of figs.1-2 below) with the mask main body (1); and
the mask (as shown in figs.1-2) has:
a usage mode (abstract) in which the mask is attached to a head of the user in a state where the nose cover portion is folded with respect to the mask main body at the boundary (as shown in fig.2); Note: a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim; and
a usage mode (abstract) in which the mask is attached to the head in a state where the nose cover portion (3) is unfolded with respect to the mask main body at the boundary (as shown in fig.1 and reproduce images of figs1-2 above); Note: a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim;
the mask has a usage mode (abstract) in which the mask is attached to the head in a state where the nose cover portion is capable of being folded to a front side of the mask main body at the boundary as the usage mode in which the mask is attached to the head in a state where the nose cover portion is folded with respect to the mask main body at the boundary. Note: Liang suggests the whole mask ventilation, can contact with the nose bridge and improve the user wearing comfort pad is folded, the user can according to the use environment determining whether the pad is folded to improve comfort ([Page 2], 5th paragraph). The claim does not require a specific structural or manipulative difference from the prior art; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, the proposed modification would not render the invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
PNG
media_image1.png
411
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
386
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO2017110943A1).
With respect to claim 1, Yamada discloses a mask (45, figs.15-17) comprising:
a mask main body (46) for preventing exposure of a mouth of a user (during use) and ([Page 6],6th para]); and
a nose cover portion (48) protruding from the mask main body (46, as shown in fig.17) to prevent exposure of an external nostril of the user (during use) and ([Page 6],6th para]);
wherein the nose cover (48) portion is foldable (as shown in fig.19) with respect to the mask main body (46) at a boundary (as shown in the reproduced image of fig.17 below) with the mask main body; (46) and
the mask (45) has:
a usage mode in which the mask (45) is attached to a head of the user in a state where the nose cover portion (48) is folded (as shown in fig.19) with respect to the mask main body (46) at the boundary (as shown in the reproduced image of fig.17); Note: a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim and
a usage mode in which the mask (45) is attached to the head in a state where the nose cover portion (48) is unfolded (as shown in fig.17) with respect to the mask main body at the boundary (as shown in the reproduced image of fig.17 below); Note: a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim;
the mask (45) has a usage mode in which the mask is attached to the head in a state where the nose cover portion is capable of being folded to a front side of the mask main body at the boundary as the usage mode in which the mask is attached to the head in a state where the nose cover portion is folded with respect to the mask main body at the boundary. Note: the claim does not require a specific structural or manipulative difference from the prior art; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, the proposed modification would not render the invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
PNG
media_image3.png
363
541
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Yamada discloses the nose cover portion (48) is connected to the mask main body (46) only at a lower end of the nose cover portion (48, as shown in fig.17) in a state where the nose cover portion is unfolded with respect to the mask main body at the boundary (as shown in the reproduced image of fig.17 above).
With respect to claim 5, Yamada discloses a mark indicating the boundary [the nose pad is attached at the boundary via stitching ([Page 9], 7th para].
With respect to claim 6, Yamada discloses at least a part of the boundary [where the stitching is located] has different rigidity [the threads the stitches are made from will have a different rigidity from the material the main body and nose cover portion is made from] from that of at least one of a portion of the mask main body (46) adjacent to the boundary and a portion of the nose cover portion (48) adjacent to the boundary.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berke U.S. Patent No. (7, 077, 140 B1).
With respect to claim 7, Berke discloses a mask (as shown in fig.7) comprising:
a mask main body (15, fig.7) for preventing exposure of a mouth of a user; and
a nose cover or noseform (11) attached to a front side of the mask main body (as shown in fig.7) and ([Col.3], lines 28-32, the adhesive 12 or Velcro.RTM. (not shown) on the outer surface of the noseform 11 to an upper portion of the front or rear surface of the mask 15 before the mask is mounted on the person) so as to protrude from the mask main body in order to prevent exposure of an external nostril of the user (as shown in phantom in fig.6, during use), wherein the nose cover or noseform (11) is detachably attached to the mask main body via hook and loop fastener ([Col.3], lines 28-32, Velcro.RTM).
attached to the front side of the mask main body.
With respect to claim 8, Berke discloses a nose cover or noseform (11) attached to a front side of a mask main body (as shown in fig.7) and ([Col.3], lines 28-32, the adhesive 12 or Velcro.RTM. (not shown) on the outer surface of the noseform 11 to an upper portion of the front or rear surface of the mask 15 before the mask is mounted on the person) for preventing exposure of a mouth of a user so as to protrude from the mask main body (as shown in phantom in fig.6, during use) in order to prevent exposure of an external nostril of the user (as shown in phantom in fig.6, during use), wherein the nose cover or noseform (11) is configured to be attachable and detachable to the mask main body via hook and loop fastener ([Col.3], lines 28-32, Velcro.RTM).
With respect to claim 10, Berke discloses the nose cover or noseforn (11) is attached to the front side of the mask main body ([Col.3], lines 28-32, the adhesive 12 or Velcro.RTM. (not shown) on the outer surface of the noseform 11 to an upper portion of the front or rear surface of the mask 15 before the mask is mounted on the person).
With respect to claim 11, Berke discloses the nose cover or noseform (11) is attached to the mask main body with a hook-and-loop fastener ([Col.3], lines 28-32, Velcro.RTM).
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berke as applied to claims 8 and 7 above, and further in view of Samuel (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0225700 A1).
With respect to claim 9, Berke substantially discloses the invention as claimed except the nose cover includes a clip for attaching the nose cover to the mask main body.
Samuel however, teaches a face mask for protecting people from spreading infectious diseases (abstract) comprising a panel (130) to which connectors are hereby contemplated, including, but not limited to, hook and loop fastener, such as a Velcro® fastener, as shown in FIG. 1C, a button, a clip, etc. [0016] for connecting the panel to the face mask.
In view of the teachings of Samuel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fastener for attaching the nose cover to the mask main body of Berke by incorporating a clip for detachably for attaching the nose cover to the mask main body.
With respect to claim 12, Berke substantially discloses the invention as claimed except the nose cover includes a clip for attaching the nose cover to the mask main body.
Samuel however, teaches a face mask for protecting people from spreading infectious diseases (abstract) comprising a panel (130) to which connectors are hereby contemplated, including, but not limited to, hook and loop fastener, such as a Velcro® fastener, as shown in FIG. 1C, a button, a clip, etc. [0016] for connecting the panel to the face mask.
In view of the teachings of Samuel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the fastener for attaching the nose cover to the mask main body of Berke by incorporating a clip for detachably for attaching the nose cover to the mask main body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues as to claim 1, prior art references drawn to Liang and Yamada does not teach or suggests “the mask has a usage mode (abstract) in which the mask is attached to the head in a state where the nose cover portion is capable of being folded to a front side of the mask main body at the boundary as the usage mode in which the mask is attached to the head in a state where the nose cover portion is folded with respect to the mask main body at the boundary”; however, as to Laing suggests the whole mask ventilation, can contact with the nose bridge and improve the user wearing comfort pad is folded, the user can according to the use environment determining whether the pad is folded to improve comfort ([Page 2], 5th paragraph). The claim does not require a specific structural or manipulative difference from the prior art; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, the proposed modification would not render the invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Furthermore, as to Yamada, the claim does not require a specific structural or manipulative difference from the prior art; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, the proposed modification would not render the invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
As to the prior art drawn to Seo, Applicant argues whether the drawings as presented by the prior art drawn to Seo indeed shows the nose cover attach to the front side of the mask main body as it is not clearly shown or explicitly disclosed have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art has been withdrawn, however, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Berke.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OPHELIA ALTHEA HAWTHORNE whose telephone number is (571)270-3860. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 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, Alireza Nia can be reached at 5712703076. 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.
/OPHELIA A HAWTHORNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786