DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to the claims filed on 01/14/2026. Claims 1-5, 7-18 are pending. A first action on the merits of claims 1-5, 7-18 is as follows.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7, 8, and 12, “the at least two electrodes” in each claim should read “the at least two radial electrodes” to maintain consistent terminology.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (WO 2019/093042) in view of Eisenmann (U.S. PGPub No. 2017/0304641).
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki teaches A cosmetic mask worn on a face of a user (see Figs 1-2 and 6-7), made of a flexible elastic material (translation, top of page 3; device made from elastic materials), and formed in a substantial band shape to be wrapped around an occiput from a chin tip through right and left cheeks (see Figs 1-2, 6-7), the cosmetic mask comprising: a mouth periphery, wherein the mouth periphery is configured to cover at least a location corresponding to a mouth with an opening (Fig 6 open mouth 15); a mandible section, wherein the mandible section is configured to cover the chin tip and at least a part of a lower surface of a mandible (Figs 6-7, section corresponding to chin and lower mandible); a cheek section, wherein the cheek section is configured to cover a part of a cheek (Figs 6-7, section covering cheek); a wrap-around section, wherein the wrap-around section is wrapped around facial lateral sides and the occiput (Figs 6-7, left and right belts 11); a pair of stimulators, wherein the pair of stimulators is configured to provide electric stimulation to a location corresponding to at least one of a zygomatic muscle and a masseter muscle of the user (Figs 6-7, current generators 2 on right and left side cheeks; Pg 3 of translation disclosing stimulating zygomatic and masseter muscles); wherein each stimulator of the pair of stimulators includes a current generator configured to generate an electric current (Figs 6-7, current generators 2) and at least two radial electrodes respectively composed of electrically conductive material (Fig 2, electrodes 160, 161, 162 extending radially from current generator), wherein the electrically conductive material includes a radial linear extension from the current generator (Fig 2, skin side electrodes 160b and 160a includes a radial linear extension from current generator 2; electrodes are disclosed as “an arrow” shape such that the ‘base’ line of the arrow is a radial linear extension); wherein the radial linear extension is a linear structure (Fig 2 radial linear extension of electrodes is a linear structure), wherein the current generator includes a controller configured to control a current and a power supply section that supplies electricity (Fig 3, current generator 2 has power button 20 and adjustment buttons 21/22 that control and adjust power supply); and a stimulator fitting section, wherein the stimulator fitting section fits each stimulator of the pair of stimulators in the cheek section (Fig 6, stimulus attachment parts 16).
Yamazaki fails to explicitly teach that at least a majority of electrical conductivity of the respective radial electrode, configured to contact a skin surface, is disposed on the radial linear extension.
In related prior art, Eisenmann teaches a similar device with a cosmetic electric stimulator (abstract disclosing device with electrodes for aesthetic skin treatment; [0006] disclosing use for skin rejuvenation for facial wrinkles); wherein at least a majority of electrical conductivity of the respective radial electrode, configured to contact a skin surface, is disposed on the radial linear extension (Fig 3, electrodes 304; Fig 10A-D, electrodes 1004 are all radial linear electrodes that define a majority of the conductive surface thereof). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode shape of Yamazaki in view of Eisenmann to incorporate the at least two radial electrodes with the radial linear structure defining at least a majority of electrical conductivity of the respective radial electrodes to arrive at claim 1. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one well-known facial electrode shape (Fig 2 arrow shape) for another well-known electrode shape (Eisenmann Fig 3, radial and linear extending shape 304) to yield the predictable result of a stimulating electrode array for stimulating the zygomatic and/or masseter muscles of the face (Pg 5 of translation). Furthermore, it has been held that where the shape of a claimed structure was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 3, Yamazaki teaches wherein from a width in lateral view of the face from a lower edge of the opening in the mouth periphery to a neck-side end of the mandible section, the cheek section and the wrap-around portion are equal width in lateral view, respectively (Figs 6-7, wrap around portion 11 and cheek section are similar width in a lateral view.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cheek section and wrap-around portion to be equal width in a lateral view, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Yamazaki would not operate differently with the claimed equal width since Yamazaki discloses a substantially equal width that works to effectively secure the mask to a user. Further, applicant places no criticality on the equal width claimed, indicating simply that the “substantially equal width distributes pressure over the skin surface that prevent skin wrinkle and bring a good cosmetic effect ([0053] of applicant’s pgpub 2023/0276924). Meanwhile, Yamazaki also discloses a device of nearly equal width that distributes pressure over the skin surface.
Regarding claim 4, Yamazaki teaches wherein a nosepiece matching at least a convex shape of a nose is provided above the mouth periphery (Fig 7, nose pad portion 14).
Regarding claim 7, Yamazaki teaches wherein the at least two electrodes comprise: a first electrode extending in a direction a temporomandibular joint when the cosmetic mask is worn (Fig 2, electrode 160), a second electrode extending in a direction of the opening (Fig 2, electrode 161), and a third electrode extending in a direction of the mandible section (Fig 2, electrode 162).
Regarding claim 8, Yamazaki teaches wherein the at least two electrodes are formed to be curved from a base from the current generator toward a skin contact surface (Fig 2 and 7-8, electrodes 160-162 are curved away from current generator 2 toward a skin surface).
Regarding claim 9, Yamazaki teaches wherein the stimulator fitting section comprises: a current generator region (Figs 1 and 6, front surface of attachment parts 16), wherein in the current generator region, the current generator is fitted and at least a part of the current generator is exposed to a front surface (see Fig 3 part of generator 2 exposed to front surface), and an electrode region (Fig 1 and 6, bottom/back side of attachment parts 16), wherein in the electrode region, corresponding one of the at least two electrodes is fitted and exposed only to skin contact surface (Fig 4 define electrode region exposed only to skin contact surface).
Regarding claim 10, Yamazaki teaches wherein the cosmetic mask is integrally molded with a resin material (Fig 10 and page 7, discloses mask integrally molded with resin), and hardness of the resin material is changed according to the location (Fig 10B, different sections have differing hardness).
Regarding claim 11, Yamazaki teaches A cosmetic electric stimulator for electrically stimulating skin surface of a user (Figs 1-2 and 6-7), the cosmetic electric stimulator comprising: a current generator (Fig 6, current generator 2), wherein the current generator generates a current (function of a current generator), and at least two radial electrodes radially extending from the current generator (Fig 2, electrodes 160, 161, 162 extending radially from current generator), and respectively composed of electrically conductive material, wherein the electrically conductive material includes a radial linear extension from the current generator (Fig 2, skin side electrodes 160b and 160a includes a radial linear extension from current generator 2; electrodes are disclosed as “an arrow” shape such that the ‘base’ of the arrow is a radial linear extension); wherein the radial linear extension is a linear structure (Fig 2 radial linear extension of electrodes is a linear structure); wherein the current generator comprises a controller and a power supply section, wherein the controller controls a current and the power supply section supplies electricity (Fig 3, current generator 2 has power button 20 and adjustment buttons 21/22 that control and adjust power supply).
Yamazaki fails to explicitly teach that at least a majority of electrical conductivity of the respective radial electrode, configured to contact a skin surface, is disposed on the radial linear extension.
In related prior art, Eisenmann teaches a similar device with a cosmetic electric stimulator (abstract disclosing device with electrodes for aesthetic skin treatment; [0006] disclosing use for skin rejuvenation for facial wrinkles); wherein at least a majority of electrical conductivity of the respective radial electrode, configured to contact a skin surface, is disposed on the radial linear extension (Fig 3, electrodes 304; Fig 10A-D, electrodes 1004 are all radial linear electrodes that define a majority of the conductive surface thereof). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode shape of Yamazaki in view of Eisenmann to incorporate the at least two radial electrodes with the radial linear structure defining at least a majority of electrical conductivity of the respective radial electrodes to arrive at claim 11. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one well-known facial electrode shape (Fig 2 arrow shape) for another well-known electrode shape (Eisenmann Fig 3, radial and linear extending shape 304) to yield the predictable result of a stimulating electrode array for stimulating the zygomatic and/or masseter muscles of the face (Pg 5 of translation). Furthermore, it has been held that where the shape of a claimed structure was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 12, Yamazaki teaches wherein each of the at least two electrodes is curved from a base of the current generator toward the skin contact surface (Fig 2 and 7, electrodes 160-162 are curved away from current generator 2 toward a skin surface).
Regarding claim 15, in view of the combination of claim 3 above, Yamazaki teaches wherein a nosepiece matching at least a convex shape of a nose is provided above the mouth periphery (Fig 7, nose pad portion 14).
Claim(s) 2 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Eisenmann, in further view of Wu (U.S. Patent No. 5,099,829).
Regarding claim 2, in view of the combination of claim 1 above, Yamazaki teaches the wrap-around section is configured to be split at a top of the occiput (Fig 6, left and right belts 11 are split), and the wrap-around section is configured to be fastened by a hook-and-loop fastener (Figs 1-2, surface fasteners 11a-11b).
Yamazaki fails to teach wherein the fasteners are explicitly hook-and-loop fasteners.
In related prior art, Wu teaches a similar device comprising hook-and-loop fasteners (Col 2 lines 8-12 and Fig 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the surface fasteners as hook-and-loop fasteners to arrive at claim 2. Doing so would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as hook-and-loop fasteners are well-known in the art as one of many alternative fastener mechanisms to yield predictable results therein (Pg 4 of Yamazaki disclosing “A hook, a one-touch buckle, a magnet or the like may be used for securing the left and right belts (11) and the upper and lower belts (12) in addition to the surface fasteners.”; Col 2 lines 8-12 of Wu).
Regarding claim 13, in view of the combination of claim 2 above, Yamazaki teaches wherein from a width in lateral view of the mask from a lower edge of the opening in the mouth periphery to a neck-side end of the mandible section, the cheek section and the wrap-around portion are equal width in lateral view, respectively (Figs 6-7, wrap around portion 11 and cheek section are similar width in a lateral view.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cheek section and wrap-around portion to be equal width in a lateral view, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Yamazaki would not operate differently with the claimed equal width since Yamazaki discloses a substantially equal width that works to effectively secure the mask to a user. Further, applicant places no criticality on the equal width claimed, indicating simply that the “substantially equal width distributes pressure over the skin surface that prevent skin wrinkle and bring a good cosmetic effect ([0053] of applicant’s pgpub 2023/0276924). Meanwhile, Yamazaki also discloses a device of nearly equal width that distributes pressure over the skin surface.
Regarding claim 14, in view of the combination of claim 2 above, Yamazaki teaches wherein a nosepiece matching at least a convex shape of a nose is provided above the mouth periphery (Fig 7, nose pad portion 14).
Claim(s) 5 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki, in view of Eisenmann, and in further view of Bauer (U.S. PGPub No. 2008/0147022).
Regarding claims 5 and 17-18, Yamazaki/Eisenmann teaches the device of claims 1 and 3-4 respectively as stated above, Yamazaki teaches a portion of the mandible section being capable of being pulled to pull the mandible section toward a neck when the cosmetic mask is worn (Fig 7, bottom of mandible section can be physically grasped and pulled).
Yamazaki fails to teach a tab is provided at a neck side end of the mandible section to pull the mandible section toward
In related prior art Bauer teaches a similar device comprising a tab is provided at a neck-side end of the mandible section to pull the mandible section toward a neck when the cosmetic mask is worn (Fig 1, tabs 26 and 24 are disclosed as being capable of being pulled to assist with the proper positioning of the device [0063]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamazaki in view of Bauer to incorporate a pull tab at the bottom of the mandible section to arrive at claims 5 and 17-18, respectively. Doing so would advantageously utilize an easy-to-grasp pull tab to assist a user in positioning the device ([0063]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Eisenmann and Wu as applied to claim 2, and in further view of Bauer.
Regarding claim 16, Yamazaki/Eisenmann/Wu teach the device of claim 2, Yamazaki teaches a portion of the mandible section being capable of being pulled to pull the mandible section toward a neck when the cosmetic mask is worn (Fig 7, bottom of mandible section can be physically grasped and pulled).
Yamazaki fails to teach a tab is provided at a neck side end of the mandible section to pull the mandible section towarda neck when the cosmetic mask is worn.
In related prior art Bauer teaches a similar device comprising a tab is provided at a neck-side end of the mandible section to pull the mandible section toward a neck when the cosmetic mask is worn (Fig 1, tabs 26 and 24 are disclosed as being capable of being pulled to assist with the proper positioning of the device [0063]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamazaki in view of Bauer to incorporate a pull tab at the bottom of the mandible section to arrive at claim 16. Doing so would advantageously utilize an easy-to-grasp pull tab to assist a user in positioning the device ([0063]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Z Minchella whose telephone number is (571)272-8644. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri 7-3 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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
/ADAM Z MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794