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 .
Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/3/25. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-10 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and claim 11 been added. Thus, claims 1-11 are presently pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
See claim 1’s recitation “magnetic means for their mutual coupling and uncoupling (corresponding structure are magnetics or one magnet and one metal surface, Page 6, lines 5-8).
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “the other element” suggested to be changed to --the other identification and diffuser element-- for clarity.
Claim 5 recites “by means of” suggested to be changed to --by way of-- in order to avoid confusion with 112f language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 4 recites “comprising an identification element” however it is unclear what structure is comprises the identification element here.
Claim 1, line 7 recites “the same mask,” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 2, line 2 recites “one on each” suggested to be changed to --one of the two magnets on each-- for clarity.
Claim 5, line 2 and claim 9, lines 4-5 recites “a container” however it is unclear if applicant is referring back to the container recited in claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “fancy figures” however it is unclear what the metes and bounds of this language includes.
Claim 9 recites “a face covering, surgical mask or filtering facial device comprising the diffuser and identification device of claim 1, positioned at an area of the face covering, surgical mask, or filtering facial device intended to cover” in lines 1-3, however it is unclear how the face covering, surgical mask or filtering facial device is positioned at an area of the face covering, surgical mask, or filtering facial device. The language is suggested to be changed to --a face covering, surgical mask or filtering facial device comprising the diffuser and identification device of claim 1, positioned to cover-- for clarity.
Claim 9 recites “the correct use” suggested to be changed to --correct use-- to avoid lacking proper antecedent basis.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volk et al. (2021/0345694), Means (2012/0090616), Fiebel et al. (2012/0144556) and Schori (2021/0307495).
Regarding claim 1, in fig. 6A Volk discloses an identification device 614 for a face covering 604, surgical mask 604 or filtering facial device 604, wherein said face covering, surgical mask, or filtering facial device includes an external surface (outer surface shown in fig. 6A) and an internal surface (inner surface closer to user’s face in use) opposite said external surface, comprising an identification element 614 comprising a decorative or identification figure [0102], said identification element being intended to be affixed to said external surface of said face covering (Fig. 6A), surgical mask or filtering facial device, and an additional decorative or identification element intended to be affixed to the internal surface of face covering [0102], but is silent regarding a diffuser element intended to be affixed to said internal surface of the same mask or filtering facial device. However, in fig. 3 Means teaches a diffuser element 24 intended to be affixed to an internal surface of a mask 10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Volk’s internal surface decoration with a diffuser element, as taught by Means, for the purpose of blocking unpleasant odors ([0017] Means). The modified Volk is silent regarding that that the diffuser element comprises a container, having at least a part of an exposed surface thereof perforated. However, Fiebel teaches a diffuser element (pad within chamber 201 [0036]) that comprises a container (204 and 202), having at least a part of an exposed surface thereof perforated (202 has apertures 205). 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 Volk’s diffuser element with a diffuser element comprising a container having perforations, as taught by Fiebel, for the purpose of providing an alternate diffuser element structure having the predictable results of blocking unpleasant odors. The modified Volk is silent regarding that said identification and diffuser elements are each further provided with magnetic means for their mutual coupling and uncoupling on opposite sides of said face covering, surgical mask or of said filtering facial device. However, in fig. 1 Schori teaches elements (pouch 30 [0066] and patch with aesthetic design features 10 [0063]) on either side of a garment provided with magnetic means (32 and 12) for their mutual coupling and uncoupling on opposite sides of the garment [0066]. 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 Volk’s identification and diffuser elements with the addition of magnets, as taught by Schori, for the purpose of providing alternate attachment mechanisms for securing the identification and diffuser elements to the mask on opposite sides of a surface.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Volk discloses that said magnetic means are two magnets (32 and 12, Schori), one on each of said identification and diffuser elements (32 and 12, Schori), or a magnet on one of the identification and diffuser elements and a metal surface on the other element.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Volk discloses that said magnetic means are housed on said identification and diffuser elements on the opposite side with respect to said decorative figure and to said perforated exposed surface, respectively (32 and 12, Schori).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Volk discloses that said diffuser element is a hollow body (made from 204 and 202, Fiebel) with an opening (205 Fiebel) through which the substances to be diffused are introduced ([0036] Fiebel).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Volk discloses that said diffuser element is a container that can be opened by interlocking or by means of a door with snap closure ([0037] Fiebel).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Volk discloses that said diffuser element is adapted to diffuse through said perforated surface scents ([0018] Means), fragrances, essential oils, natural extracts in the form of gels, creams, ointments, (Fiebel is able to diffuse through the perforated surface any of the above due to its perforated structure [0037]) optionally absorbed on porous supports.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Volk discloses that said diffuser element comprises a decorative or identification figure (200 of Fiebel has a specific shape that is able to be identified).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Volk discloses that said decorative or identification figure is selected from the group consisting of tags with name or initials of a user, fancy figures and graphic signs, miniature photo frames, logos (see fig. 1B Volk), graphic codes, images, photographs and smart electronic elements of active and/or passive type.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Volk discloses a face covering (604 Volk), surgical mask or filtering facial device comprising the diffuser and identification device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), positioned at an area of the face covering, surgical mask, or filtering facial device intended to cover a mouth of a user with said identification figure facing outwards (Fig. 6A Volk) and said diffuser element comprising a container facing inwards from the face covering, surgical mask, or filtering facial device during the correct use thereof (Fig. 3, Means), said identification figure and said container being coupled together and held in place by means of respective magnets (Fig. 1 Schori).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Volk discloses a kit comprising a member of the group consisting of face covering (604 Volk), surgical mask and a filtering facial device and the diffuser and identification device of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volk, Means, Fiebel and Schori, as applied to claim 8 above, in further view of Liu et al. (2021/0330359).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Volk is silent regarding that said decorative or identification figure is a smart electronic element. However, in fig. 1B Liu teaches a smart electronic element (printed circuit board 120) on an outer surface of mask in communication with sensors [0041] and Volk teaches adding an aesthetic decoration into an attached device [0119]. 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 Volk’s decorative or identification figure with a printed circuit board including an aesthetic decoration and external sensors, as taught by Liu and an alternate embodiment of Volk, for the purpose of monitoring patient vitals ([0002] Liu).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 11 that Volk’s identification element 614 is not a separate accessory.
Examiner disagrees since Volk describes 614 as a different fabric type, color, decoration, or patterning on the opposite surface of the surface having the decoration 614 [0102].
Applicant discusses Volk’s cleats 322 on page 11.
This argument is not taken well since Volk’s cleats are not replied upon by the examiner.
Applicant argues on page 11 that Volk teaches nothing about a two- part accessory system where an external element is mutually coupled to an internal element through the mask fabric.
This argument is not taken well since Schori is relied upon for the magnetic coupling of two accessories.
Applicant argues on page 11 that Means does not teach a "diffuser element" in the form of a container.
This argument is not taken well since Means was modified by Fiebel to teach a diffuser comprising a container.
Applicant argues on page 12 that there is no motivation to modify Means twist-tie with Fiebel’s pocket-inserted container.
This argument is not taken well since this is not the modification that was made. Mean’s diffuser element (scent strip 24) was modified with a diffuser element of Fiebel comprising a container having perforations, the container holding a scented pad. In this case Means twist tie is analogous to Fiebel’s pocket and the twist tie was not modified to be a pocket. Means twist tie was modified to holder the container and scented pad of Fiebel.
Applicant argues on page 12-13 that Schori is non-analogous art.
Examiner disagrees since Schori is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor since Schori is concerned with attaching two accessories on opposite sides of a garment using magnetic coupling.
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 RACHEL T SIPPEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1481. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 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, 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.
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785