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
Applicant’s amendments of claims 1-2, 6-10, and 15 are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Applicant’s amendments of claims 1, 2, 6, and 9 have overcome the previous claim objections. Therefore, the claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments of claims 7-8 have overcome the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Therefore, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 7 and 8 are withdrawn. Applicant has not amended claim 9 to fix the offending limitation. Therefore, claim 9 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Currently claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2025 in regards to the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While a user inherently has a body, Applicant has not explicitly presented the user’s body in the claims. Therefore, the recitation of “the body” lacks antecedent basis and is subsequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for a lack of antecedent basis. Furthermore, Examiner appreciates Applicant pointing out the missed issues for lack of antecedent basis. Examiner will ensure to properly object to the previously missed issues, and reject the newly amended offending limitations.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 06/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Won and Sik 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 newly found reference of Thornton (US 2004/0079374 A1) as will be discussed below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “space (between the rear surface of the mask body and the forward surfaces of the user's face) being constant in the rearward direction across the forward surfaces of the user's face” as recited in claim 1. must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Currently the figures only show what appears to be a minor portion of the distance between an undisclosed portion of mask and an undisclosed portion of the user’s face. Therefore, the figures do not show a constant space as claimed.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter of “the space (between the rear surface of the mask body and the forward surfaces of the user's face) being constant in the rearward direction across the forward surfaces of the user's face” as recited in claim 1. Applicant’s specification [0097] states “the mask body 200 is spaced apart from the user's face UF by a predetermined distance, and a space 1220 may be formed between the mask body 200 and the user's face UF” but in no way states that the space is “constant” as claimed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the nose” in line 21. This limitation should be amended to recite “a nose” to properly present the structure.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the 3D modeling”. This limitation should be amended to recite “a 3D modeling” to properly present the process.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the space (between the rear surface of the mask body and the forward surfaces of the user's face) being constant in the rearward direction across the forward surfaces of the user's face”. This requirement of a constant spacing between the mask body and the user’s face, as discussed above, was not described in the specification or seen in the figures in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for containing new matter.
Claims 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as being dependent on a rejected claim, and therefore, contain the same offending limitations.
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 1-15 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 recites the limitation “the face” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a face”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the nostrils” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “at least one nostril”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the mouth” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a mouth”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a portion of the mask body that relates to the user's breathing”. This limitation is considered unclear due to claim 1’s recitations of “at least one filter unit mounted on the mask body…at least one filter unit is mounted to correspond to at least one of a lower part of the nose and a central part of the mouth (both portions of the mask body which relate to breathing). Therefore, it is unclear as to which of the two portions of the mask body related to a user’s breathing claim 9 is referring to. Additionally the recitation of “the user’s breathing” lacks antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as neither claim 1 or claim 9 properly presents breathing of the user. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the portion of the mask body that corresponds to at least one of the lower part of the nose and the central part of the mouth”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the body of the user” in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a body of the user”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the user’s motions” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a plurality of motions of the user”.
Claims 2-8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on a rejected claim, and therefore, contain the same offending limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornton (US 2004/0079374 A1) in view of Won (KR-10-2017-0004129 A) and Sik (KR 101975240 B1) (Examiner relies on a machine translation for both references of Won and Sik provided by Espacenet.com).
In regards to claim 1, Thornton discloses a face-shaped mask (10; see [0013]; see figure 5) comprising:
a mask body (12; see [0013]; see figure 5) that is made of a plastic material (see [0017]) and includes a front surface and a rear surface formed opposite to the front surface (see figures 3 and 5 that 12 comprises opposite, front and rear surfaces) the rear surface facing in a rearward direction toward the face of a user (see figure 3) and being configured to cover a lower part of the user’s face (see figure 5) the lower part of the user’s face including breathing-related parts of the nostrils and the mouth of the user (See figure 5);
a loop part (26; see [0013]; see figure 5) configured to fix the mask body (12) to the user (see figure 5);
the plastic material (thermoplastic) of the mask body (12) is formed corresponding to the lower part of the user’s face (see [0014]; see figure 5), the front surface of the mask body (12) configured to display an image of the user’s face based on curvatures and forward surfaces of the user’s face (see [0014]; see figure 5), the rear surface of the mask body (12) formed to have a rearward-facing shape corresponding to the curvatures of the forward surfaces of the user’s face (See [0014]; see figures 3 and 5).
Thornton does not disclose a contact portion having a predetermined height and being formed along a periphery of the rear surface of the mask body;
and at least one filter unit mounted on the mask body;
the plastic material of the mask body is 3D-printed using a 3D mask model corresponding to the user’s face using a plurality of 2D images of the user’s face;
the at least one filter unit is mounted to correspond to at least one of a lower part of the nose and a central part of the mouth; and
wherein, when the user wears the face-shaped mask, a space of a predetermined distance corresponding to the predetermined height of the contact portion is present between the rear surface of the mask body and the forward surfaces of the user's face, the space being constant in the rearward direction across the forward surfaces of the user's face.
However, Won discloses an analogous face-shaped mask (custom mask; see [0014]; see figure 1) comprising:
a mask body (30; see [0016]; see figure 1) which corresponds to a shape of a lower part of a face (see figure 12 and 13) of a user (see figure 12 and 13 that 12 corresponds to the user’s face); further comprising a contact portion (10; see [0017]; see figure 2) having a predetermined height (see figure 2) and being formed along a periphery of the rear surface of the mask body (30; see figure 3 that 10 has a predetermined height, and is formed along a periphery of the rear surface of 30) for the purpose of providing a contact portion in contact with, and seals about the user’s face (see [0017-0018]).
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 mask body as disclosed by Thornton by including the contact portion as taught by Won in order to have provided an improved face-shaped mask that would add the benefit of providing a contact portion in contact with, and seals about the user’s face (see [0017-0018]). Thereby increasing the ability of Thornton’s face-shaped mask to reduce leakage and provide better performance as discussed in [0014] of Thornton.
Thus, as now combined Thornton as now modified by Won discloses wherein, when the user wears the face-shaped mask (10 of Thornton), a space of a predetermined distance (space defined by the height of included 10 of Won) corresponding to the predetermined height of the contact portion (10 of Won) is present between the rear surface of the mask body (12 of Thornton) and the forward surfaces of the user's face (10 of Won included onto the rear surface of 12 of Thornton creates a space as claimed), the space (space defined by 10 of Won) being constant in the rearward direction across the forward surfaces of the user's face (given that the mask body of Thornton is intended to conform to every curvature of the user’s face as seen in figure 3, the space between the rear surface of 12 of Thornton and the user’s face defined by the height of included 10 of Won, is constant).
Thornton further discloses the use of an external system (20; see [0013]; see figure 1), which can be a continuous positive air pressure (CPAP) system, for supplying air or another gas to the user's nose (which are capable and known to have a filter unit for purifying the air provided to the user), and is mounted on the mask body (12; see figure 1) to correspond to at least one of a lower part of the nose and a central part of the mask (see [0013]; see figure 5).
However, Thornton as now modified by Won does not explicitly disclose at least one filter unit mounted on the mask body;
the at least one filter unit is mounted to correspond to at least one of a lower part of the nose and a central part of the mouth.
However, Sik teaches an analogous face shaped mask (100; see [0036]; see figure 1) comprising a mask body which corresponds to a shape of a lower part of the user’s face (see figure 6 that the device 100 is intended to be placed over a user’s nose and thus corresponds to the shape of a lower part of the user’s face) further comprising:
at least one filter unit (left and right 123; see [0046]; see figure 5) mounted on the mask body (111; see figure 1 that left and right 123 are intended to be mounted on 111); and
the at least one filter unit (left and right 123) is mounted to correspond to at least one of a lower part of the nose and a central part of the mouth (see figures 1 and 6 that left and right 123 are mounted to correspond to the user’s nostrils and therefore the lower part of the nose) for the purpose of filtering fine dust from an exterior environment preventing the user from inhaling the dust (see [0011]).
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 mask body connections to the external device as disclosed by Thornton as now modified by Won and to have included the at least one filter unit mounted on the mask body to correspond to the nostrils of the nose as taught by Sik in order to have provided an improved mask body that would add the benefit of providing a filter for filtering fine dust from an exterior environment preventing the user from inhaling the dust (see [0011]).
With regards to the limitations of “the plastic material of the mask body is 3D-printed using a 3D mask model corresponding to the user’s face using a plurality of 2D images of the user’s face”. These limitations are drawn to an article of manufacture, and therefore the limitations are considered to be a product-by-process limitation that is given patentable weight only for the structural limitations imparted to the final product by the process. When a claim is directed to a device, the process steps are not germane to the issue of patentability. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (emphasis added). Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the instant case, the plastic material of the mask body of Thornton is intended to be formed to a user’s face and the front surface of the mask body is configured to display an image of the user’s face based on curvatures of the user’s face and the rear surface of the mask body is formed to have a rearward-facing shape corresponding to the curvatures of the forward surfaces of the user’s face as discussed above. Therefore the claimed mask body that is made of a plastic material is the same, or obvious from a product of the mask body which is formed from a plastic material of Thornton. Thus, the claimed process is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process
Nonetheless, Won further teaches wherein the mask (10) is 3D printed based on a 3D mask model corresponding to the lower part of the user's face including a lower part of the nose and the mouth of the user (see [0038-0040]) for the benefit of producing a mask that can be formed in the same manner as the user’s face (see [0040]).
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 process of forming the mask body as disclosed by Thornton as now modified by Won and Sik by forming the mask body from a 3D printing process using a 3D mask model corresponding to the user’s face using a plurality of 2D images of the user’s face as further taught by Won in order to have provided an improved process of forming the mask body that would add the benefit of producing a mask that can be formed in the same manner as the user’s face (see [0040]).
In regards to claim 2, Won as now modified by Sik discloses the invention as discussed above.
Thornton as now modified by Sik further discloses wherein the at least one filter unit (left and right 123) includes a first filter unit (left and right 123 of Sik; left and right 123 of Sik are considered a first filter unit similar to Applicant’s first filter unit which is formed by two separate nostril filters (see [0071-0073]), and
a first filter unit mounting portion (18 of Thornton; see [0013] and figure 5 of Thornton; 18 of Thornton corresponds to a user’s nostrils and facilitates the mounting of left and right 22 and thus, would be used to mount the included left and right 123 of Sik) to which the first filter unit (left and right 123 of Sik) is mounted is formed at a position corresponding to at least a nostril of the mask body (see [0013] that 16 of Thornton corresponds to nostrils of the mask body, and figure 1 of Sik that left and right 123 of Sik correspond to a user’s nostrils and thus, would be included into the mask body at left and right 18 of Thornton).
In regards to claim 3, Thornton as now modified by Won and Sik discloses the invention as discussed above.
Thornton as now modified by Sik further discloses wherein the first filter unit (left and right 123 of Sik) is detachably mounted to the first filter unit mounting portion (18 of Thornton; see [0027] of Sik in reference to “a replaceable consumable filter into the nostrils for continuous replacement of the filter”; thus, left and right 123 of Sik are detachably mounted as claimed).
In regards to claim 4, Thornton as now modified by Won and Sik discloses the invention as discussed above.
Thornton as now modified by Sik further discloses wherein the first filter unit (left and right 123 of Sik) is mounted on the mask body (12 of Thornton) through any one of interference fit coupling, screw coupling, and sliding coupling to the first filter unit mounting portion (18 of Thornton; see [0013] of Thornton that 18 utilizes force fitting (an interference coupling) as a form of connection; therefore, left and right 123 of Sik would be coupled to 18 similarly (i.e. being force fitted onto or into 18)).
In regards to claim 5, Thornton as now modified by Won and Sik discloses the invention as discussed above.
Thornton as now modified by Sik further discloses wherein the first filter unit (left and right 123 of Sik) includes:
a right nostril filter unit (right 123 of Sik) corresponding to a right nostril of the mask body (12 of Thornton); and
a left nostril filter unit (left 123 of Sik) corresponding to a left nostril of the mask body (12 of Thornton), and wherein the mask body (12 of Thornton) includes:
a right nostril filter unit mounting portion (right 18 of Thornton) for mounting the right nostril filter unit (right 123 of Sik); and
a left nostril filter unit mounting portion (left 18 of Thornton) for mounting the left nostril filter unit (left 123 of Sik; see discussion above with respect to 18 of Thornton being utilized to mount left and right 123 of Sik).
In regards to claim 9, Thornton as now modified by Won and Sik discloses the invention as discussed above.
Thornton as now modified by Sik further discloses the at least one filter unit (left and right 123 of Sik) has breathability (see Sik [0011]) and is configured to be detachably mounted (see [0027] of Sik in reference to “a replaceable consumable filter into the nostrils for continuous replacement of the filter”; thus, left and right 123 of Sik are detachably mounted as claimed) in a portion of the mask body (12 of Thornton) that relates to the user’s breathing (left and right 123 of Sik mounted in 18 of Thornton, and thus are mounted in a portion of 12 which relates to the user’s breathing)
wherein the at least one filter unit (left and right 123 of Sik) includes a filter (left and right 123 of Sik are filters; see [0046] and figure 5 of Sik), that blocks at least one of droplets, yellow dust, smoke, toxic gas, fine dust, and viruses from entering the body of the user via the nose or mouth (see Sik [0011]).
In regards to claim 10-14, Thornton as now modified by Won and Sik discloses the invention as discussed above.
Claims 10-14 do not claim or further define any structures of the face-shaped mask. Claims 10-14 only further define the process of generating the 3D mask model using the plurality of 2D images for the 3D printing process of forming the mask body. Therefore, these claims are all drawn to an article of manufacture, and the limitations are considered to be product-by-process limitations that are given patentable weight only for the structural limitations imparted to the final product by the process. When a claim is directed to a device, the process steps are not germane to the issue of patentability. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (emphasis added). Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the instant case, the plastic material of the mask body of Thornton as now modified by Won, as discussed above, is formed from the process of 3D printing as discussed above. Therefore the claimed mask body that is made from a plastic material through a process of 3D printing is the same, or obvious from a product of the mask body of Thornton which is formed from a plastic material by a 3D printing process as taught by Won. Thus, the claimed processes of claims 10-14 are unpatentable in view of the face-shaped mask of Thornton as now modified by Won.
In regards to claim 15, Thornton as now modified by Won and Sik discloses the invention as discussed above.
Thornton as now modified by Won further discloses wherein the predetermined height of the contact portion (height of 10 of Won) is configured to prevent the face-shaped mask (10 of Thornton) from interfering with the user's motions when speaking or making facial expressions (height of 10 of Won spaces 10 of Thornton from a user’s face, and thus is configured to prevent the face-shaped mask from interfering with the user's motions when speaking or making facial expressions as claimed).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornton in view of Won and Sik as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Thompson et al. (US 2018/0311516 A1).
In regards to claim 6, Thornton as now modified by Won and Sik discloses the invention as discussed above.
Thornton as now modified by Won and Sik does not disclose wherein the at least one filter unit further includes a second filter unit, and
a second filter unit mounting portion for mounting the second filter unit is formed at a position corresponding to a mouth part of the mask body.
However, Thompson teaches an analogous filtering mask (10; see [0030]; see figure 1) comprising a mask body (12; see [0030]; see figure 1) comprising a nose portion (20; see [0030]; see figure 1), and a mouth portion (22; see [0030]; see figure 1) wherein the mask body (12) comprises a filter unit (filtering structure; see [0031]), and
a filter unit mounting portion (28; see [0032]; see figure 1) for mounting the filter unit (filtering structure; see [0031]) which is formed at a position corresponding to a mouth part of the mask body (12; see figure 1 that 28 is formed in portion 22) for the purpose of providing respiratory protections from hazardous materials (see [0029]).
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 mask body as disclosed by Thornton as now modified by Won and Sik and to have included the additional (second) filter unit and second filter unit mounting portion corresponding to a mouth part of the mask body as taught by Thompson in order to have provided an improved mask body which would add the benefit of providing an additional filtering structure which provides additional respiratory protections from hazardous materials (see [0029]).
In regards to claim 7, Thornton as now modified by Won, Sik, and Thompson discloses the invention as discussed above (see interpretation above).
Thornton as now modified by Thompson further discloses wherein the second filter unit (filtering structure of Thompson) is detachably mounted to the second filter mounting portion (28 of Thompson; see [0032] of Thompson that the filtering structure is replaceable (and thus detachably mounted) within 28).
In regards to claim 8, Thornton as now modified by Won, Sik, and Thompson discloses the invention as discussed above.
Thornton as now modified by Thompson further discloses wherein the second filter unit (filtering structure of Thompson) is mounted on the mask body (12 of Thornton) through any one of interference fit coupling (See figure 1 of Thompson that 28 comprises prongs which interfere with removal of any structures inserted within 28), screw coupling, and sliding coupled to the second filter unit mounting portion (28 of Thompson)
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 DANIEL MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-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, 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.
/DANIEL A MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3786