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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments made to claims 1-6 and 8-15 in the response filed 9/16/25 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application and are examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on p. 7-12 that Wu fails in claims 1, 10, and 15 to teach the newly added limitations regarding the filter being capable of rejecting aerosolized, virus-carrying micro-droplets of saliva and mucus, because Wu is concerned with gas permeability and not solving the problem of virus rejection; Wu does not balance breathability with virus rejection. However, Wu’s filtration material is hydrophobic. Therefore, it would be capable of rejecting micro-droplets of saliva and mucus that are aerosolized (carried via gas), as saliva and mucus both have water content; since the filtration material would allow gas to pass through but reject water content due to its hydrophobicity, microdroplets of saliva and mucus that carry viruses are capable of being rejected by the hydrophobic material. For these reasons, the rejection has been maintained.
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) 1, 4, and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. US 2011/0114095 A1 in view of Wu CA 2150466 C further in view of Imai JP H10110257 A and Carstens US 2007/0106354 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a mask assembly comprising: a face covering portion ([0044], the component 10 can be fitted in the mouth piece of a facemask; thus, the facemask is the claimed “mask assembly”, and the portion of the facemask surrounding the mouth piece/component 10 is the claimed “face covering portion”) comprising a filter 10 (fig. 1 and [0031], component 10 provides filtration) comprising a porous layer 12 (fig. 1 and [0045], outer layer 12 with air permeability), a carbon and copper layer 14 (fig. 1 and [0030], layer 14 is an impregnated activated carbon cloth layer; [0033], antimicrobial metals including copper can be incorporated in the impregnation), and a non-woven fabric layer 16 (fig. 1 and [0030], inner layer 16 can be non-woven; [0013], the invention pertains to textile materials for protection against viruses).
Smith is silent on the porous layer being hydrophobic and lipophobic, wherein the filter is capable of rejecting aerosolized, virus-carrying micro-droplets of saliva and mucus.
However, Wu teaches a porous layer for use in filtration and garments (bottom of p. 2 of translation to top of p. 3, invention relates to gas permeable materials for use in filtration and garment constructions) being hydrophobic and lipophobic (bottom of p. 2 to top of p. 3, the gas permeable material is hydrophobic and oleophobic (i.e., lipophobic)), wherein the filter is capable of rejecting aerosolized, virus-carrying micro-droplets of saliva and mucus (as discussed previously, the filtration material is hydrophobic; therefore, it would be capable of rejecting micro-droplets of saliva and mucus that are aerosolized (carried via gas), as saliva and mucus both have water content; since the filtration material would allow gas to pass through but reject water content due to its hydrophobicity, microdroplets of saliva and mucus that carry viruses are capable of being rejected by the hydrophobic material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the porous layer of Smith to be hydrophobic and lipophobic, wherein the filter is capable of rejecting aerosolized, virus-carrying micro-droplets of saliva and mucus, as taught by Wu, to prevent the filtration passages of the mask from being clogged by water or oil, which maintains good breathability.
Smith in view of Wu is silent on the carbon and copper layer being a diamond-like carbon coated copper layer.
However, Imai teaches a medical dressing/layer having an antimicrobial film ([0009]), wherein the layer is a diamond-like carbon coated copper layer (claim 8, adhesion layer is made of copper, and has a diamond-like carbon film coating).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the carbon and copper layer of Smith in view of Wu to be a diamond-like carbon coated copper layer, as taught by Imai, to suppress proliferation of bacteria for a long time (abstract).
Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai is silent on a pocket connected to the face covering portion and positioned to cover a wearer’s nose and mouth, wherein the filter is removably insertable into the pocket.
However, Carstens teaches an analogous mask assembly 130 (fig. 12 and [0096], holder 130 in the form of a face mask) comprising a pocket connected to the face covering portion 130 (fig. 12 and [0097], filter article 132 can be mounted to holder 130 by being removably mounted in a pocket as described in a previous embodiment; fig. 2 and [0058] describes the pocket 32 removably receiving the article) and positioned to cover a wearer’s nose and mouth (fig. 12), wherein an analogous filter 132 is removably insertable into the pocket (fig. 12 and [0097], filter article 132 can be mounted to holder 130 by being removably mounted in a pocket as described in a previous embodiment; fig. 2 and [0058] describes the pocket 32 removably receiving the article).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the mask assembly of Smith and Wu further in view of Imai with a pocket connected to the face covering portion and positioned to cover a wearer’s nose and mouth, wherein the filter is removably insertable into the pocket, as taught by Carstens, to allow the filter to be easily replaced.
Regarding claim 4, Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai and Carstens discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai further teach in combination the filter 10 having three layers 12/14/16 (fig. 1 of Smith), wherein an external layer 12 is the porous hydrophobic and lipophobic layer (fig. 1 of Smith, the upwards direction being in the external direction, and as previously discussed, layer 12 of Smith is the porous layer; Wu has previously taught this layer being hydrophobic and lipophobic), followed immediately by the diamond-like carbon coated copper layer 14 (fig. 1 of Smith, the carbon and copper layer 14 is immediately adjacent layer 12; Imai has previously taught this layer being diamond-like carbon coated copper), followed by the non-woven fabric layer 16 (fig. 1 of Smith, layer 16 which has been previously discussed as being non-woven fabric is immediately adjacent layer 14).
Regarding claim 6, Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai and Carstens discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Smith further discloses the carbon and copper layer 14 (previously modified by Imai to be diamond-like carbon coated copper layer) having a thickness in a range of 0.5-0.8 mm ([0034], the activated carbon cloth can have a thickness of 0.2-2 mm, which includes 0.5-0.8 mm).
Regarding claim 7 and 8, Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai and Carstens discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Carstens further teaches the filter 132 further comprising a connector for attaching the filter 132 to the face covering portion, wherein the connector is selected from a group consisting of tape, adhesive, hooks, and hook and loop connectors (as previously discussed, according to [0097], filter article 132 can be mounted to holder 130 by being removably mounted in a pocket as described in a previous embodiment; in the previous embodiment shown in fig. 2, [0058] describes the pocket 32 removably receiving the article, and the pocket itself may be attached to the holder by gluing (i.e., adhesive); thus, the filter article 132 is attached to the face covering portion via the glued pocket), to allow the filter to be easily replaced but securely held in the pocket within the mask during use.
Regarding claim 9, Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai and Carstens discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Smith further discloses the filter 10 further comprising a frame portion 20 for supporting the filter layers 12/14/16 (fig. 1 and [0031], attachment means 20 is positioned along the perimeter to hold the layers together; therefore, attachment means/perimeter 20 frames the filter component 10 to hold and support the layers in a connected assembly).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. US 2011/0114095 A1 in view of Wu CA 2150466 C further in view of Imai JP H10110257 A, Carstens US 2007/0106354 A1, Taha et al. US 2018/0334545 A1, and Maturaporn US 5,467,765.
Regarding claim 2, Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai and Carstens discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Wu further teaches the porous hydrophobic and lipophobic layer being a polypropylene surface (p. 5, the gas permeable material can be polypropylene), as polypropylene is flexible and can be gas permeable, ideal for a mask material.
Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai and Carstens is silent on the polypropylene being hydroxylated and having chemically attached siloxane molecules.
However, Taha teaches an analogous plastic substrate for use in medical devices ([0002]) being hydroxylated and having chemically attached siloxane molecules ([0016], embodiment (i) provides reaction of surface-bound hydroxyl group with siloxane-functional polymer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the polypropylene surface of Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai and Carstens to be hydroxylated and having chemically attached siloxane molecules, as taught by Taha, to have reduced biomolecule adhesion to the surface ([0002]), which would keep the mask more clean.
Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai, Carstens, and Taha is silent on the porous hydrophobic and lipophobic layer having a thickness in a range of 0.2-0.8 mm.
However, Maturaporn teaches a face mask 10 (fig. 3 and col. 1, lines 6-7) comprising an analogous outer layer 60 having a thickness in a range of 0.2-0.8 mm (fig. 3 and col. 5, lines 51-53, layer 60 have a thickness of approximately 0.15 mm, which can include a thickness of about 0.2 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the porous hydrophobic and lipophobic layer of Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai, Carstens, and Taha to have a thickness in a range of 0.2-0.8 mm, as taught by Maturaporn, which is prima facie obvious since the claimed range is close to the value disclosed in the prior art (please see MPEP 2144.05 I., “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. “The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.”)); further, there is no evidence in the specification of the instant application that the claimed thickness is critical to the invention, and paragraph [0034] states that the dimensions indicated for the layers are understood to be an example, while in practice, the dimensions will be chosen as required and meaningful.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. US 2011/0114095 A1 in view of Wu CA 2150466 C further in view of Imai JP H10110257 A, Carstens US 2007/0106354 A1, and Yoshida JP 4883828 B2.
Regarding claim 3, Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai and Carstens discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai and Carstens is silent on the diamond-like carbon of the diamond-like carbon coated copper layer being impregnated with clusters selected from a list consisting of zinc oxide, silver nanoparticles, and a combination of zinc oxide and silver nano particles.
However, Yoshida teaches a sheet/layer for personal care ([0006], the deodorant composition can be used in diapers, sanitary napkins, sweat pads, adhesive plasters, bed sheets, etc), the layer being impregnated with clusters selected from a list consisting of zinc oxide ([0022], the functional granule can be impregnated in the sheet with an aqueous dispersion of zinc oxide in a granular state; [0006], the zinc oxide agglomerates to form granules, which is interpreted as clusters), silver nanoparticles, and a combination of zinc oxide and silver nano particles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have impregnated the diamond-like carbon of the diamond-like carbon coated copper layer of Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai and Carstens with clusters selected from a list consisting of zinc oxide, silver nanoparticles, and a combination of zinc oxide and silver nano particles, as taught by Yoshida, to provide a deodorizing effect ([0005]), making the mask more pleasant to wear.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. US 2011/0114095 A1 in view of Wu CA 2150466 C further in view of Imai JP H10110257 A, Carstens US 2007/0106354 A1, and Maturaporn US 5,467,765.
Regarding claim 5, Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai and Carstens discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai and Carstens is silent on the non-woven fabric layer having a thickness in a range of 0.1-0.5 mm.
However, Maturaporn teaches a face mask 10 (fig. 3 and col. 1, lines 6-7) comprising an analogous inner layer 20 having a thickness in a range of 0.1-0.5 mm (fig. 3 and col. 5, lines 25-27, thickness of layer 20 is approximately 0.43 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the non-woven fabric layer of Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai and Carstens to have a thickness in a range of 0.1-0.5 mm, as taught by Maturaporn, which is prima facie obvious since the claimed range overlaps with the range disclosed by the prior art (please see MPEP 2144.05 I., “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”); further, there is no evidence in the specification of the instant application that the claimed thickness is critical to the invention, and paragraph [0034] states that the dimensions indicated for the layers are understood to be an example, while in practice, the dimensions will be chosen as required and meaningful.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. US 2011/0114095 A1 in view of Wu CA 2150466 C further in view of Imai JP H10110257 A and Hwang et al. US 2013/0139830 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Smith discloses a filter 10 (fig. 1 and [0031], component 10 provides filtration) comprising: at least one porous layer 12 (fig. 1 and [0045], outer layer 12 with air permeability); at least one carbon and copper layer 14 (fig. 1 and [0030], layer 14 is an impregnated activated carbon cloth layer; [0033], antimicrobial metals including copper can be incorporated in the impregnation); and at least one additional non-woven fabric layer 16 (fig. 1 and [0030], inner layer 16 can be non-woven; [0013], the invention pertains to textile materials for protection against viruses).
Smith is silent on the porous layer being hydrophobic and lipophobic, wherein the filter is capable of rejecting aerosolized, virus-carrying micro-droplets of saliva and mucus.
However, Wu teaches a porous layer for use in filtration and garments (bottom of p. 2 of translation to top of p. 3, invention relates to gas permeable materials for use in filtration and garment constructions) being hydrophobic and lipophobic (bottom of p. 2 to top of p. 3, the gas permeable material is hydrophobic and oleophobic (i.e., lipophobic)), wherein the filter is capable of rejecting aerosolized, virus-carrying micro-droplets of saliva and mucus (as discussed previously, the filtration material is hydrophobic; therefore, it would be capable of rejecting micro-droplets of saliva and mucus that are aerosolized (carried via gas), as saliva and mucus both have water content; since the filtration material would allow gas to pass through but reject water content due to its hydrophobicity, microdroplets of saliva and mucus that carry viruses are capable of being rejected by the hydrophobic material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the porous layer of Smith to be hydrophobic and lipophobic, wherein the filter is capable of rejecting aerosolized, virus-carrying micro-droplets of saliva and mucus, as taught by Wu, to prevent the filtration passages of the mask from being clogged by water or oil, which maintains good breathability.
Smith in view of Wu is silent on the carbon and copper layer being a diamond-like carbon coated copper layer.
However, Imai teaches a medical dressing/layer having an antimicrobial film ([0009]), wherein the layer is a diamond-like carbon coated copper layer (claim 8, adhesion layer is made of copper, and has a diamond-like carbon film coating).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the carbon and copper layer of Smith in view of Wu to be a diamond-like carbon coated copper layer, as taught by Imai, to suppress proliferation of bacteria for a long time (abstract).
Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai is silent on the at least one diamond-like carbon coated copper layer being interposed between two non-woven fabric layers.
However, Hwang teaches a filter 21 (fig. 3 and [0041], inhalation filter 21) comprising an analogous filter layer 21a (fig. 3 and [0042], aluminum oxide film 21a prevents viruses from passing through) interposed between two non-woven fabric layers 21c/21c (fig. 3 and [0043], aluminum oxide film 21a is between dust-free fiber layers 21c, which are made of non-woven fabric).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the at least one diamond-like carbon coated copper layer of Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai to be interposed between two non-woven fabric layers, as taught by Hwang, to filter dust from inflowing and discharged air ([0043]).
Regarding claim 12, Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai and Hwang discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Smith further discloses the at least one diamond-like carbon coated copper layer 14 (previously modified by Imai to be diamond-like carbon coated copper layer) having a thickness in a range of 0.5-0.8 mm ([0034], the activated carbon cloth can have a thickness of 0.2-2 mm, which includes 0.5-0.8 mm).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. US 2011/0114095 A1 in view of Wu CA 2150466 C further in view of Imai JP H10110257 A, Hwang et al. US 2013/0139830 A1, and Maturaporn US 5,467,765.
Regarding claim 11, Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai and Hwang discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai and Hwang is silent on the at least one additional non-woven fabric layer having a thickness in a range of 0.1-0.5 mm.
However, Maturaporn teaches a face mask 10 (fig. 3 and col. 1, lines 6-7) comprising an analogous inner layer 20 having a thickness in a range of 0.1-0.5 mm (fig. 3 and col. 5, lines 25-27, thickness of layer 20 is approximately 0.43 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the at least one additional non-woven fabric layer of Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai and Hwang to have a thickness in a range of 0.1-0.5 mm, as taught by Maturaporn, which is prima facie obvious since the claimed range overlaps with the range disclosed by the prior art (please see MPEP 2144.05 I., “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”); further, there is no evidence in the specification of the instant application that the claimed thickness is critical to the invention, and paragraph [0034] states that the dimensions indicated for the layers are understood to be an example, while in practice, the dimensions will be chosen as required and meaningful.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. US 2011/0114095 A1 in view of Wu CA 2150466 C further in view of Imai JP H10110257 A, Hwang et al. US 2013/0139830 A1, and Carstens US 2007/0106354 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai and Hwang discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Smith further discloses a frame portion 20 operationally connected to hold the respective layers 12/14/16 (fig. 1 and [0031], attachment means 20 is positioned along the perimeter to hold the layers together; therefore, attachment means/perimeter 20 frames the filter component 10 to hold and support the layers in a connected assembly).
Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai and Hwang is silent on a connector operationally connected to the frame portion for connecting the filter to a mask.
However, Carstens teaches an analogous mask assembly 130 (fig. 12 and [0096], holder 130 in the form of a face mask) comprising a connector operationally connected to an analogous perimeter/frame portion of a filter 132 for connecting the filter 132 to a mask 130 (according to [0097], filter article 132 can be mounted to holder 130 by being removably mounted in a pocket as described in a previous embodiment; in the previous embodiment shown in fig. 2, [0058] describes the pocket 32 removably receiving the article, and the pocket itself may be attached to the holder by a variety of attachment means; thus, the filter article 132 is attached to the mask via the attached pocket).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the filter of Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai and Hwang with a connector operationally connected to the frame portion for connecting the filter to a mask, as taught by Carstens, to allow the filter to be easily replaced but securely held in the pocket within the mask during use.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. US 2011/0114095 A1 in view of Wu CA 2150466 C further in view of Imai JP H10110257 A, Hwang et al. US 2013/0139830 A1, and Maturaporn US 5,467,765
Regarding claim 14, Smith in view of Wu further in view of Imai and Hwang discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Maturaporn further teaches total thickness of the filter being 0.9 mm (col. 5, lines 25-31, first layer 20 is 0.40-0.45 mm; col. 5, lines 38-39, second layer 40 is 0.15-0.30 mm; col. 5, lines 51-53, third layer 60 is 0.15 mm; thus, the total thickness at the upper range is 0.9 mm).
While Maturaporn does not explicitly teach a thickness in a range of 1.0-3.0 mm, this claimed limitation is prima facie obvious since the claimed range is close to the value disclosed in the prior art (please see MPEP 2144.05 I., “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. “The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.”)); further, there is no evidence in the specification of the instant application that the claimed thickness is critical to the invention, and paragraph [0034] states that the dimensions indicated for the layers are understood to be an example, while in practice, the dimensions will be chosen as required and meaningful.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. US 2011/0114095 A1 in view of Wu CA 2150466 C further in view of Imai JP H10110257 A.
Regarding claim 15, Smith discloses a filter 10 (fig. 1 and [0031], component 10 provides filtration) comprising: at least one porous layer 12 (fig. 1 and [0045], outer layer 12 with air permeability); at least one carbon and copper layer 14 (fig. 1 and [0030], layer 14 is an impregnated activated carbon cloth layer; [0033], antimicrobial metals including copper can be incorporated in the impregnation); and at least one non-woven fabric layer 16 (fig. 1 and [0030], inner layer 16 can be non-woven; [0013], the invention pertains to textile materials for protection against viruses), wherein the at least one carbon and copper layer 14 is between the at least one porous layer 12 and the at least one non-woven fabric layer 16 (fig. 1).
Smith is silent on the porous layer being hydrophobic and lipophobic, wherein the filter is capable of rejecting aerosolized, virus-carrying micro-droplets of saliva and mucus.
However, Wu teaches a porous layer for use in filtration and garments (bottom of p. 2 of translation to top of p. 3, invention relates to gas permeable materials for use in filtration and garment constructions) being hydrophobic and lipophobic (bottom of p. 2 to top of p. 3, the gas permeable material is hydrophobic and oleophobic (i.e., lipophobic)), wherein the filter is capable of rejecting aerosolized, virus-carrying micro-droplets of saliva and mucus (as discussed previously, the filtration material is hydrophobic; therefore, it would be capable of rejecting micro-droplets of saliva and mucus that are aerosolized (carried via gas), as saliva and mucus both have water content; since the filtration material would allow gas to pass through but reject water content due to its hydrophobicity, microdroplets of saliva and mucus that carry viruses are capable of being rejected by the hydrophobic material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the porous layer of Smith to be hydrophobic and lipophobic, wherein the filter is capable of rejecting aerosolized, virus-carrying micro-droplets of saliva and mucus, as taught by Wu, to prevent the filtration passages of the mask from being clogged by water or oil, which maintains good breathability.
Smith in view of Wu is silent on the carbon and copper layer being a diamond-like carbon coated copper layer.
However, Imai teaches a medical dressing/layer having an antimicrobial film ([0009]), wherein the layer is a diamond-like carbon coated copper layer (claim 8, adhesion layer is made of copper, and has a diamond-like carbon film coating).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the carbon and copper layer of Smith in view of Wu to be a diamond-like carbon coated copper layer, as taught by Imai, to suppress proliferation of bacteria for a long time (abstract).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE J LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7303. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM.
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 (571)270-3076. 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.
/MICHELLE J LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786