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 .
Specification (Abstract of the Disclosure)
The amendment to the Abstract were received on 02/05/2026. These amendments are acknowledged and accepted by the Office.
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) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young (KR20200001878U) in view of Cheol et al. (KR 20210009943 A) and further in view of Ng et al. U.S. Publication No. (2009/0050156 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Young substantially discloses a mask (20, figs.1-5) having a three-dimensional structure (length width and depth), comprising:
a mask body (22);
ear loops or fixing straps (24, fig.5) which are coupled to both sides of the mask body so as to be worn on a human body (as shown in phantom in fig.5).
Young substantially discloses the invention as claimed except (1) at least one protruding expansion portion which protrudes outward from the mask body such that a concave groove is formed on a surface of the mask body when facing the human body and (2) wherein the protruding expansion portion is horn-shaped, or frustum-shape.
Cheol et al. however, teaches a dusk mask comprising a concave groove ([Page 4], 6th paragraph, a concave portion is provided on the inner surface due to the protrusion of the present invention and in close contact with the filter] formed in the inner side of an outer shell (1) of the mask, facing the human body and a plurality of protrusions (11) protrude from the outer side of the outer shell (10, fig.6) and ([Page 3], 6th paragraph]).
In view of the teachings of Cheol et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mask body of Young by incorporating least one protruding expansion portion which protrudes outward from the mask body such that a concave groove is formed on the surface of the mask body facing the human body in order to improve the fit by reducing the adhesion of the face portion as well as the face portion intake resistance.
The combination of Young/Cheol et al. substantially discloses the invention as claimed except wherein the protruding expansion portion is horn-shaped, or frustum-shape.
Ng et al. however, teaches a mask comprising protrusions (2002, figs.2-22-1-2-22-3) are structured to increase the surface area available for venting so more vent openings may be provided over a venting area of the mask [0215]; wherein the protruding expansion portion is horn-shaped, or frustum-shape (as shown in figs.2-22-1 and 2-22-2).
In view of the teachings of Ng et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the protruding expansion portion of Young/Cheol et al. having a horn-shaped or frustrum-shaped in order to increase the surface area of the mask. Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the protruding expansion portion of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art(s) of record fails to show or make obvious the claimed combinations of elements particularly the limitations as set forth in independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-3 and 5-6 which recite features not taught or suggested by the prior art of record.
The prior art(s) of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest wherein the surface expansion portion comprises: a first vertical support for connecting a center of the horizontal support and a pair of second vertical supports for connecting both ends of the horizontal support, respectively, wherein the first vertical support and the second vertical supports are bent such that the area between the horizontal supports protrudes or is concave in the mask body, in combination with the other elements (or steps) of the apparatus and method recited in the claims.
Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness or an anticipation rejection cannot be established with respect to the claimed subject matter as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 are allowed insofar as they depend from the allowed base claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-2, filed 02/05/2026, with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-2, filed 02/05/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the combination of Young/Cheol et al. in view of Ng et al. U.S. Publication No. (2009/0050156 A1).
The amendment to the Abstract overcome the objection to the Abstract, therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
The amendment to claims 1-8 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
The amendment to claims 2 and 7-8 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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 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
Prosecution Insights