DETAILED ACTION
In Applicant’s Response filed 1/12/26, Applicant has amended claims 1, 5-6 and 15. Claims 2-3 and 17-18 have been cancelled. Currently, claims 1, 4-16 and 19-20 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/12/26 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallander et al (US 2021/0298378) in view of Wan (US 2017/0216634) and further in view of Verpoort et al (EP 1743535 A2).
With respect to claim 1, Wallander discloses a barrier face mask (face covering 600; Fig.17) comprising:
a mask body (nonwoven body 610) formed from one or more nonwoven web layers (para [0088], body 610 is a "nonwoven body") comprising
a seamless filter portion (the nonwoven body 610 is interpreted as having the same construction as nonwoven body 406 which is described as comprising filter materials to filter at least some particulates – para [0071]; as shown in fig 17 the body 610 appears to be a single contiguous piece of material and does not include any seams; a seam is interpreted as being the location where two pieces of material are joined – see Merriam-Webster definition; thus, a single piece of material, that is not joined to another piece of material, is interpreted as being seamless),
an upper elastic portion (fig.17, elastic strand 614 that runs along upper edge 602; para [0091]), and
a lower elastic portion (fig 17, elastic strand 614 that runs along the lower edge 604; para [0091]); wherein the mask body (610) comprises at least two layers, and wherein one or more of the layers is formed from a meltblown nonwoven web and one or more of the layers is formed from a spunbond nonwoven web (face covering 600 can be fabricated using system 100 of fig 1; para [0088]; system 100 provides a first supply roll 110 containing a first nonwoven fabric 112 and a second supply roll 114 containing a second nonwoven fabric 116 wherein the nonwoven fabrics 112, 116 are a tri-laminate nonwoven fabric including a top layer of spunbond polypropylene, a middle layer of meltblown polypropylene and a bottom layer of spunbond polypropylene thereby providing a spunbond layer and a meltblown layer – para [0043]);
at least one elastic strap (ties 612; the ties are fully elastic – para [0091]) wherein each elastic strap (612) is attached to a first side and an opposed second side of the mask body (as shown in fig 17, the ties 612 extend from the third edge 606 and the fourth edge 608; para [0090]).
Wallander also discloses that the face mask filters greater than 75% of particles (para [0096]) but does not, however, explicitly disclose that the mask filters 70% or more of particles having a size of 0.65 microns or greater.
Wan, however, teaches that “a few brands of face masks…have filtration rates of 95% or higher for small particles such as PM2.5 (particulate matter with diameters less than 2.5 micron), from smog sources…” (para [0002]). It is inherent that a filter that is capable of filtering particles with diameters of 2.5 micron or less will also filter particles with larger diameters which would be too large to pass through the filter media. Thus, Wan is interpreted as teaching that there are masks known in the art as being configured to filter 70% or more of particles having a size of 0.65 microns or greater for use in filtering particulate matter in air pollution such as smog. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have configured the face mask of Wallander to filter 70% or more of particles having a size of 0.65 microns or greater as taught by Wan in order to provide effective filtration of particulate matter in smog.
Wallander in view of Wan does not, however, disclose that the meltblown nonwoven web and the spunbond nonwoven web or the spunbond-meltblown-spunbond nonwoven fabric have been electrostatically treated.
Verpoort, however, teaches a face mask (para [0001]) comprising a protective part 2 that comprises at least two layers (comprises three layers – para [0057-0058]), wherein one or more of the at least two layers is formed from a meltblown nonwoven web and one or more of the at least two layers is formed from a spunbond nonwoven web or a spunbond-meltblown-spunbond nonwoven fabric (formed of three layers of nonwoven polymeric material – outer layer 15 is spunbond type, intermediate layer 16 is meltblown type, and inner layer 17 is spunbond type – para [0058] forming a spunbond/meltblown/spunbond SMS laminate – para [00057]), further wherein the meltblown nonwoven web and the spunbond nonwoven web or the spunbond-meltblown-spunbond nonwoven fabric have been electrostatically treated (the nonwoven stacked SMS laminate is electrostatically charged - para [0057]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the mask body of Wallander in view of Wan by electrostatically treating the meltblown and spunbond nonwoven webs as taught by Verpoort, in order to increase capacity for attracting particles (Verpoort para [0057]).
With respect to claim 4, Wallander in view of Wan and further in view of Verpoort discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Wallander also discloses that the face mask filters greater than 80% of particles (para [0096]). Wallander does not, however, explicitly disclose that the mask filters 80% or more of particles having a size of 0.65 microns or greater.
Wan, however, teaches that “a few brands of face masks…have filtration rates of 95% or higher for small particles such as PM2.5 (particulate matter with diameters less than 2.5 micron), from smog sources…” (para [0002]). It is inherent that a filter that is capable of filtering particles with diameters of 2.5 micron or less will also filter particles with larger diameters which would be too large to pass through the filter media. Thus, Wan is interpreted as teaching that there are masks known in the art as being configured to filter 70% or more of particles having a size of 0.65 microns or greater for use in filtering particulate matter in air pollution such as smog. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have configured the face mask of Wallander in view of Wan and further in view of Verpoort to filter 80% or more of particles having a size of 0.65 microns or greater as taught by Wan in order to provide effective filtration of particulate matter in smog.
With respect to claim 5, Wallander in view of Wan and further in view of Verpoort discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Wallander also discloses that the mask body includes a spunbond nonwoven layer and a meltblown nonwoven layer (face covering 600 can be fabricated using system 100 of fig 1; para [0088]; system 100 provides a first supply roll 110 containing a first nonwoven fabric 112 and a second supply roll 114 containing a second nonwoven fabric 116 wherein the nonwoven fabrics 112, 116 are a tri-laminate nonwoven fabric including a top layer of spunbond polypropylene, a middle layer of meltblown polypropylene and a bottom layer of spunbond polypropylene thereby providing a spunbond layer and a meltblown layer – para [0043]).
With respect to claim 6, Wallander in view of Wan and further in view of Verpoort discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Wallander also discloses that the mask body includes a spunbond-meltblown-spunbond layer, and a meltblown nonwoven layer (face covering 600 can be fabricated using system 100 of fig 1; para [0088]; system 100 provides a first supply roll 110 containing a first nonwoven fabric 112 and a second supply roll 114 containing a second nonwoven fabric 116 wherein the nonwoven fabrics 112, 116 are a tri-laminate nonwoven fabric including a top layer of spunbond polypropylene, a middle layer of meltblown polypropylene and a bottom layer of spunbond polypropylene thereby providing a spunbond layer and a meltblown layer and can include more layers of spunbond polypropylene and/or meltblown polypropylene – para [0043]).
With respect to claim 7, Wallander in view of Wan and further in view of Verpoort discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Wallander also discloses that the upper clastic portion, the lower elastic portion, or both the upper elastic portion and the lower elastic portion are disposed between a first and a second nonwoven layer of the mask body (face covering 600 can be fabricated using system 100 of fig 1; para [0088]; system 100 provides a first supply roll 110 containing a first nonwoven fabric 112 and a second supply roll 114 containing a second nonwoven fabric 116 wherein elastic strands are bonded between the two layers 112 and 116 – para [0045]).
With respect to claim 8, Wallander in view of Wan and further in view of Verpoort discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Wallander also discloses that the upper clastic portion, the lower elastic portion, or both the upper elastic portion and the lower elastic portion are laminated to the one or more nonwoven web layers (face covering 600 can be fabricated using system 100 of fig 1; para [0088]; system 100 provides a first supply roll 110 containing a first nonwoven fabric 112 and a second supply roll 114 containing a second nonwoven fabric 116 wherein elastic strands are bonded via ultrasonic bonding between the two layers 112 and 116 – para [0045]; ultrasonic bonding is interpreted as causing lamination of the layers to one another).
With respect to claim 9, Wallander in view of Wan and further in view of Verpoort discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Wallander also discloses that the at least one elastic strap (ties 612) is formed from the same elastic as the upper elastic portion and the lower elastic portion (elastic strands 614 extend throughout the body 610 and the ties 612 so that the face mask is fully elastic – para [0091]).
With respect to claim 10, Wallander in view of Wan and further in view of Verpoort discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Wallander also discloses that the face mask comprises at least two straps (face covering 600 includes two pairs of ties 612 – para [0090]; upper and lower ties 612 shown in fig 17).
With respect to claim 11, Wallander in view of Wan and further in view of Verpoort discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Wallander also discloses that the mask body has a length in an extended state of about 200 millimeters to about 350 millimeters (para [0066] - face mask 300 may have a length of 24 in. measured along the extension of the elastic strands of the elastic nonwoven fabric when the face covering is fully elongated such that the face coverings 300 may have a circumference in a range of about 8 in. to about 50 in., which includes the claimed range of approximately 7-14 inches; face covering 600 is interpreted as having the same length as covering 300 as both are sized to cover and wrap around the user’s face).
With respect to claim 12, Wallander in view of Wan and further in view of Verpoort discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Wallander also discloses that the at least one elastic strap has a length in an extended state of about 200 millimeters to about 350 millimeters (para [0066] - face mask 300 may have a length of 24 in. measured along the extension of the elastic strands of the elastic nonwoven fabric when the face covering is fully elongated such that the face coverings 300 may have a circumference in a range of about 8 in. to about 50 in., which includes the claimed range of approximately 7-14 inches; face covering 600 is interpreted as having the same length as covering 300 as both are sized to cover and wrap around the user’s face; the elastic strands 614 extend throughout the ties 612 – thus, the ties are interpreted as having the same length as the elastic strands; para [0091]; see also fig 17 which shows that the ties 612 extend from each side 606,608 but also are shown extending along the entire upper/lower edges 602,604 and, thus, are interpreted as having a length that is equal to the entire length of the mask 600).
Claim 13 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallander et al (US 2021/0298378) in view of Wan (US 2017/0216634) and Verpoort et al (EP 1743535 A2) and further in view of Andrews (US 2018/0326232).
With respect to claim 13, Wallander in view of Wan and further in view of Verpoort discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but is silent as to the width of the at least one elastic strap. Thus, Wallander does not explicitly disclose that the at least one elastic strap has a width in an extended state of about 25 millimeters to about 75 millimeters.
Andrews, however, teaches a mask (Fig.13) comprising at least one strap (securement strap 602 which can comprise first and second portions 701 and 702) wherein each strap is attached to a first side and an opposed second side of the mask body (as shown in fig 7) to provide an easy to use, one size fits all securement strap [0005] and [0048]). Andrews further teaches that the at least one strap (602) has a width in an extended state of about 25 millimeters to about 75 millimeters (Andrews, [0045], strap is 2 inches wide – approx. 50mm which is within the claimed range of 25-75mm). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have formed the at least one strap of Wallander in view of Wan and further in view of Verpoort such that the strap has a width in an extended state of about 25 millimeters to about 75 millimeters, like the at least one strap in Andrews, in order to provide an easy to use, one size fits all securement strap.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallander et al (US 2021/0298378) in view of Wan (US 2017/0216634) and Verpoort et al (EP 1743535 A2) and further in view of Bansal (US 2009/0211581).
With respect to claim 14, Wallander in view of Wan and further in view of Verpoort discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but does not disclose that the face mask exhibits an air permeability according to ASTM D737 of about 20 cfm or greater. However, Bansal teaches a face mask (Fig.2) that exhibits an air permeability according to ASTM D737 (para [0046]) of about 20 cfm or greater (para [0037], up to 25 cfm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the face mask of Wallander in view of Wan and further in view of Verpoort to have a permeability according to ASTM D737 of about 20 cfm or greater as taught by Bansal in order to protect the wearer against airborne particulates, bacteria, and other germs, and against chemical vapors and splashes (para [0015]) while avoiding known drawbacks found with conventional masks such as accumulation of moisture on the mask which can increase breathing difficulty (para [0003-0004]).
Claim(s) 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallander et al (US 2021/0298378) in view of Wan (US 2017/0216634) and further in view of Curran (EP 1224011 B1) and Lee et al (KR 20190028408 A).
With respect to claim 15, Wallander discloses a method of forming a face mask (system 100, Fig.1, [0042]- [0045]) with a seamless filter portion (the nonwoven body 610 is interpreted as having the same construction as nonwoven body 406 which is described as comprising filter materials to filter at least some particulates – para [0071]; as shown in fig 17 the body 610 appears to be a single contiguous piece of material and does not include any seams; a seam is interpreted as being the location where two pieces of material are joined – see Merriam-Webster definition; thus, a single piece of material, that is not joined to another piece of material, is interpreted as being seamless); comprising:
forming a laminate (the method is used to form the SMS tri-laminate; para [0043]) comprising
unwinding a first nonwoven web (as shown in fig 1, the system involves unwinding the first nonwoven fabric 112 from supply roll 110);
placing one or more elastic members in an upper region, a lower region, or both an upper region and a lower region (elastic strands 120, 124, 128 and 132 are provided and arranged such that strand 120 is adjacent to fabric 112 at an upper region of the structure while strand 132 is adjacent to fabric 116 at a lower region of the structure as shown in fig 1);
unwinding a second nonwoven web in-line (as shown in fig 1, the system involves unwinding the second nonwoven fabric 116 from supply roll 114) wherein the web is an untreated nonwoven web (there is no disclosure of providing treatment prior to unrolling the material – thus, the fabric on supply roll 114 is interpreted as being untreated prior to unrolling) and
laminating the first nonwoven web, one or more elastic members, and the second nonwoven web (para [0043-0045]);
attaching one or more straps to the laminate (the face covering 600 can be fabricated using system 100 of fig 1; para [0088]; face covering 600 includes ties 612 that inherently are “attached” to the body 610 in order to provide the structure shown in fig 17), wherein each strap (612) is attached to a leading edge and an opposed trailing edge of the laminate (as shown in fig 17, the ties 612 extend from the third edge 606 and the fourth edge 608; para [0090]);
wherein the first nonwoven web is a spunbond nonwoven web or a spunbond-meltblown-spunbond fabric and the second nonwoven web is a meltblown nonwoven web (face covering 600 can be fabricated using system 100 of fig 1; para [0088]; system 100 provides a first supply roll 110 containing a first nonwoven fabric 112 and a second supply roll 114 containing a second nonwoven fabric 116 wherein the nonwoven fabrics 112, 116 are a tri-laminate nonwoven fabric including a top layer of spunbond polypropylene, a middle layer of meltblown polypropylene and a bottom layer of spunbond polypropylene thereby providing a spunbond layer and a meltblown layer – para [0043]).
Wallander also discloses that the face mask filters greater than 75% of particles (para [0096]) but does not, however, explicitly disclose that the mask filters 70% or more of particles having a size of 0.65 microns or greater.
Wan, however, teaches that “a few brands of face masks…have filtration rates of 95% or higher for small particles such as PM2.5 (particulate matter with diameters less than 2.5 micron), from smog sources…” (para [0002]). It is inherent that a filter that is capable of filtering particles with diameters of 2.5 micron or less will also filter particles with larger diameters which would be too large to pass through the filter media. Thus, Wan is interpreted as teaching that there are masks known in the art as being configured to filter 70% or more of particles having a size of 0.65 microns or greater for use in filtering particulate matter in air pollution such as smog. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have configured the face mask of Wallander to filter 70% or more of particles having a size of 0.65 microns or greater as taught by Wan in order to provide effective filtration of particulate matter in smog.
Wallander also does not explicitly disclose that the one or more straps are attached to the laminate during an in-line process.
Curran, however, teaches a method of attaching a component to a filtration material that is suitable for use as a respiratory mask (para [0001]) wherein figure 16, in particular, shows an inline process for making respiratory masks including process steps for attaching components to each mask. Specifically, Curran teaches that each manufacturing step is preferably performed in line with one another so as to define a high-speed inline process which can include the mounting of a component inline with the other process steps and at the same high speed of operation so that a high speed manufacturing process results (para [0050]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have further modified the method of Wallander so that the one or more straps are attached to the laminate during an in-line process as taught by Curran in order to provide a high speed manufacturing process.
Wallander in view of Wan and further in view of Curran does not, however, explicitly disclose that the method includes subjecting the untreated meltblown nonwoven web, after formation and prior to lamination, to an electrostatic treatment.
Lee et al, however, teaches a method of manufacturing a nonwoven electrostatic filter wherein the method includes the steps of providing an electrostatic treatment to a meltblown nonwoven fabric (it is inherent that treatment is provided to the formed fabric in order to thereby provide an electrostatically treated nonwoven material as described in the examples) and thereafter laminating the treated fabric with a film to form the filter (see production example 1 and comparative example 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method of Wallander in view of Wan and further in view of Curran to include subjecting the untreated meltblown nonwoven web, after formation and prior to lamination, to an electrostatic treatment, as taught by Lee, in order to further improve filtration properties of the meltblown fabric layer of the laminate.
With respect to claim 20, Wallander in view of Wan and further in view of Curran and Lee discloses the method substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 15) and Wallander also discloses that the laminate, the one or more straps, or both the laminate and the one or more straps are held in a stretched state during lamination, attachment of the one or more straps, or both lamination and attachment of the one or more straps (see Fig. 1 where rolls of nonwoven web layers are unrolled and inherently are stretched from one processing station (102,104,106) to another).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallander et al (US 2021/0298378) in view of Wan (US 2017/0216634), Curran (EP 1224011 B1) and Lee et al (KR 20190028408 A) and further in view of Andrews (US 2018/0326232).
With respect to claim 16, Wallander in view of Wan and further in view of Curran and Lee discloses the method substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 15) but Wallander does not explicitly disclose that the one or more straps are cut off of the laminate prior to attaching the straps to the laminate.
Andrews, however, teaches a mask (Fig.13) comprising at least one strap (securement strap 602 which can comprise first and second portions 701 and 702) wherein each strap is attached to a first side and an opposed second side of the mask body (as shown in fig 7) to provide an easy to use, one size fits all securement strap [0005] and [0048]). Furthermore, as shown in fig 7, the straps (701/702) are separate pieces from the mask that are laminated to opposing sides of the mask body and, therefore, are interpreted as being separated from the rest of the laminate by cutting the straps from the laminate before thereafter attaching each strap to a respective side of the mask. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method of Wallander in view of Wan and further in view of Curran and Lee so that the one or more straps are cut off of the laminate prior to attaching the straps to the laminate, as taught in Andrews, in order to provide flexibility in positioning of the straps for customization when attaching to the sides of the mask body.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallander et al (US 2021/0298378) in view of Wan (US 2017/0216634), Curran (EP 1224011 B1) and Lee et al (KR 20190028408 A) and further in view of DeJesus et al (US 2014/0235127).
With respect to claim 19, Wallander in view of Wan and further in view of Curran and Lee discloses the method substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 15) but does not disclose that an adhesive is applied to the one or more elastic members.
DeJesus, however, teaches an elastic strand coated with an elastic attachment hot melt adhesive whereby two substrates are attached onto the elastic strand with the elastic attachment hot melt adhesive (para [0010]). DeJesus further teaches that such an elastic article is suitable for use as a face mask (para [0048]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method of Wallander in view of Wan and further in view of Curran and Lee to include the step of applying an adhesive to the one or more elastic members as taught by DeJesus in order to provide attachment of the elastic members to the other layers in the laminated structure.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 1/12/26 have been fully considered as follows:
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments on pages 5-10 of the Response have been fully considered but are rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN CARREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-7234. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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.
/CAITLIN A CARREIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786