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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because it is unclear as to what the words/texts being depicted in fig. 9 are, the words/texts are faded. See PCT Article 7 Rule 11.13 (e).
Furthermore, fig. 9 contain text matter. The drawings shall not contain text matter, except a single word or words when absolutely indispensable. See PCT Article 7 Rule 11.11(a).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology, (i.e., the term “comprising” in line 1 of the abstract). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 3, the term “the item” is suggested to be changed to --the wearable item-- in order to provide consistency.
In claim 15, line 2, the term “the face covering” is suggested to be changed to --the face cover-- in order to provide consistency and clarify the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the limitations “a first and second fastening mechanism to fasten the face cover to a head of the user, so that the face cover is positionable in front of a face of the user” (claim 11, lines 2-4, the limitation “mechanism” is a generic placeholder and the function is “fastening” and “to fasten the face cover to a head of the user, so that the face cover is positionable in front of a face of the user”), “the first and second fastening mechanism” (claim 15, lines 1-2, the limitation “mechanism” is a generic placeholder and the function is “fastening”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a face cover dimensioned to cover a nose and mouth of a user” (lines 2-3) appears to be positively claiming human body parts. Applicant is suggested to use --for--, --adapted to--, --configured to-- or --whereby-- clause in order to avoid positively claiming the human body parts.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “a first and second fastening mechanism to fasten the face cover to a head of the user” (lines 2-3) appears to be positively claiming human body parts. Applicant is suggested to use --for--, --adapted to--, --configured to-- or --whereby-- clause in order to avoid positively claiming the human body parts.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “an adhesive layer that is provided on at least a portion of one side of the face cover to adhere the face cover to a face of a user” (lines 1-3) appears to be positively claiming human body parts. Applicant is suggested to use --for--, --adapted to--, --configured to-- or --whereby-- clause in order to avoid positively claiming the human body parts.
Any remaining claims are rejected for their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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 2-6, 9, 11-13, and 15-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “of water-dissolvable material” (lines 2-3) is unclear if the water-dissolvable material is the same as the water-dissolvable material being claimed in claim 1, line 2. If they are the same, suggest to amend to --the water-dissolvable material--.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “a first type…a second type” (lines 3-4) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of a first type and a second type, specifically, it is unclear how to define “type”, what features would be included in the term “type” and what feature would be excluded from the term “type”. The term “type” is too relative.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “from water-dissolvable material of a first type….from water-dissolvable material of a second type” (lines 2-4) is unclear if the water-dissolvable material in each instance is the same as or different from “a water-dissolvable material” being claimed in claim 1, line 2.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “a water-dissolvable material” (lines 2-3) is unclear if the water-dissolvable material is the same as or different from “water-dissolvable material” in claim 2, lines 1-2 and “a water-dissolvable material” in claim 1, line 2.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “non-woven and clothlike” (line 2) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, it is unclear as to how to define the term “like”, what feature makes a material clothlike versus not clothlike. The term “like” is too relative.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “at least one of polyvinyl alcohol non-woven textiles, polyethylene glycol, polyacrylamide, poly(acrylic acid), poly(methacrylic acid) and water soluble paper material” (lines 2-4) is unclear as to where to apply the term “at least one”, does the term “at least one” only applicable to polyvinyl alcohol non-woven textiles, or is the term “at least one” applicable to each one of “polyethylene glycol, polyacrylamide, poly(acrylic acid), poly(methacrylic acid) and water soluble paper material”, therefore, it is unclear if the claim is trying to claim --polyethylene glycol, polyacrylamide, poly(acrylic acid), poly(methacrylic acid), water soluble paper material, and at least one of polyvinyl alcohol non-woven textiles--, or -- at least one of polyvinyl alcohol non-woven textiles, at least one of polyethylene glycol, at least one of polyacrylamide, at least one of poly(acrylic acid), at least one of poly(methacrylic acid) and at least one of water soluble paper material-- or is the reader supposed to pick at least one of from the list of polyvinyl alcohol non-woven textiles, polyethylene glycol, polyacrylamide, poly(acrylic acid), poly(methacrylic acid), water soluble paper material.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “a first and second fastening mechanism” (line 2) is unclear if the limitation is trying to claim a first fastening mechanism and a second fastening mechanism or a single mechanism that acts as a first and a second. It is noted that the claim is claiming “a first and second fastening mechanism (singular)”. For examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted as --a first fastening mechanism and a second fastening mechanism--.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “the second first fastening mechanism” (lines 3-4) is unclear as to which fastening mechanism is being reference to by the limitation, the first fastening mechanism or the second fastening mechanism.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “a first type…a second type” (lines 2-4) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of a first type and a second type, specifically, it is unclear how to define “type”, what features would be included in the term “type” and what feature would be excluded from the term “type”. The term “type” is too relative.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the first fastening mechanism” (line 2) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the second fastening mechanism” (line 3) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “the first and second fastening mechanisms” (lines 1-2) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Any remaining claims are rejected for their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-12, 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Astete (WO 2021/243475).
Regarding claim 1, Astete discloses a wearable item (face mask 1 in fig. 1 or fig. 2 or fig. 8, see paragraphs 0033, 0034 and 0040 of the English translation, furthermore, Astete discloses that fig. 1 shows a face mask 1 that is disposable and contain at least two overlapping layers (11, 12, as shown in figure 3) of a water-soluble material or 11, 13, 12 in fig. 4 or 11, 12, 13, 14 in figs. 5 or fig. 6, or 11, 13, 12, 14, 15 in fig. 7, see paragraphs 0033-0039 and 0061) comprising: a water-dissolvable material that forms at least a majority of the wearable item (see fig. 1, fig. 2 or fig. 8 and paragraphs 0001, 0029 and 0059-61 with reference to figs. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, see full disclosure).
Regarding claim 2, Astete discloses a material connection that connects at least a first segment of water dissolvable material with a second segment of the item (see joints 20 in figs. 1, 2 and 8 and paragraphs 0033 and 0062, Astete discloses that the joint 20 can include adhesive for joining perimeter edges 3 of the layers including the innermost layer and the outermost layer, see paragraph 0075, Astete discloses stitching).
Regarding claim 5, Astete discloses that the material connection is formed from an adhesive (see joints 20 in figs. 1, 2 and 8 and paragraphs 0033 and 0062, Astete discloses that the joint 20 can include adhesive for joining perimeter edges 3 of the layers including the innermost layer and the outermost layer).
Regarding claim 6, Astete discloses that the water-dissolvable material is non-woven and clothlike (see paragraphs 0059 and 0072, Astete discloses that the material is a non-woven fabric, non-woven fabric is clothlike).
Regarding claim 7, Astete discloses that the water-dissolvable material is structured to provide a protective covering for a portion of a person’s body (see paragraphs 0044 and 0048).
Regarding claim 8, Astete discloses that the wearable item is shaped as a mask (see paragraphs 0027, 0029, 0033, 0034 and 0040).
Regarding claim 9, Astete discloses that the water-dissolvable material includes at least one of polyvinyl alcohol non-woven textiles (see paragraphs 0059 and 0072, Astete discloses that the material is a non-woven fabric, Astete further discloses in paragraphs 0020, 0029, 0057 and 0072-0073 that the water-dissolvable material is polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)).
Regarding claim 10, Astete discloses a face cover (face cover includes the layers that formed the mask, this can be the layers shown in figs. 3-7, see paragraphs 0033-0039 and 0061-0062) dimensioned to cover a nose and mouth of a user (see paragraphs 0027 and 0033, Astete discloses that the invention is a face mask which is effective in retaining pathogens, especially COVID-19, and further discloses in paragraph 0029 that the face mask cover from the chin to the nose, furthermore, see paragraph 0009); wherein the face cover is formed from the water-dissolvable material (paragraphs 0001, 0029, 0059-61).
Regarding claim 11, Astete discloses a first and a second fastening mechanism to fasten the face cover to a head of the user, such that the face cover is positionable in front of a face of the user (see paragraphs 0027, 0029 and 0033-0034 and 0040, Astete discloses that the mask is a face mask and further discloses that lateral fastening elements 2 in figs. 1, 2 and 8, the lateral fastening element on the right side of the figure is a first and the one on the left side is a second).
PNG
media_image1.png
690
1474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Astete discloses that the first fastening mechanism includes a length of material that is connected to a first lateral region of the face cover, and the second first fastening mechanism includes a length of material that is connected to a second lateral region of the face cover (the long side of 2 in figs, 1, 2 and 8 on the right side of the figures are considered as a length of material that is connected to a first lateral region of the face cover, see the annotated-Astete fig. 1 above); wherein the material of the first length and the material of the second length each comprises of the water-dissolvable material (see paragraph 0060, Astete discloses that lateral fastening elements 2 is made of a water soluble material).
Regarding claim 14, Astete discloses that the face cover is pleated (see paragraphs 0059 and 0061, the face cover is formed from different layers such as 11, 12 and 13, and as shown and disclosed, there are horizontal folds 4, therefore, is pleated, see paragraphs 0033, 0034, 0040 and 0059, see “at least two horizontal folds (4) capable of expanding”).
Regarding claim 15, Astete discloses a first and a second fastening mechanism to fasten the face cover to a head of the user (see paragraphs 0027, 0029 and 0033-0034 and 0040, Astete discloses that the mask is a face mask and further discloses that lateral fastening elements 2 in figs. 1, 2 and 8, the lateral fastening element on the right side of the figure is a first and the one on the left side is a second). Astete discloses that each of the first and second fastening mechanism are attached to an interior side of the face covering, with a respective distal end that is unattached (see fig. 1, in the embodiment of the face mask in fig. 1, the free end of each of the lateral fastening elements 2 is a distal end that is unattached, furthermore, the end that is attached to 3 is considered as being attached to an interior side, a mask would have an interior side, it is noted that the claim does not claim the details of the interior side and that the fastening mechanism are directly attached to the interior side, alternatively, the side that is directly attached to an attached end of 2 is considered as an interior side relative to a side that is further away from the respective fastening mechanism, see the annotated-Astete fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 18, Astete discloses that the face cover is formed from multiple layers, including at least two layers that are each formed from sheet of polyvinyl alcohol non-woven textile (see paragraphs 0059 and 0072, Astete discloses that the material is a non-woven fabric, Astete further discloses in paragraphs 0020, 0029, 0057 and 0072-0073 that the water-dissolvable material is polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), see figs. 3-7 regarding the multiple layers that formed the face cover, see paragraphs 0059 and 0061, the face cover is formed from different layers such as 11, 12 and 13 or 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, see paragraphs 0033-0039 and 0061).
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Capolupo (2021/0289859).
Regarding claim 1, Capolupo discloses a wearable item (glove 1 in fig. 1, paragraphs 0016-0017) comprising: a water dissolvable material that forms at least a majority of the wearable item (see paragraphs 0006, 0009, 0015, 0016 and 0023 of Capolupo, Capolupo discloses in paragraph 0015 that the device disperses as a function of time once saturated with water).
Regarding claim 2, Capolupo discloses a material connection that connects at least a first segment of water-dissolvable material with a second segment of the item (see paragraphs 0006, 0009, 0015, 0016 and 0023 of Capolupo, Capolupo discloses that the stitching is for sewing a top and a bottom of the glove, a top is one segment and a bottom is another segment).
Regarding claim 4, Capolupo discloses that the material connection includes one or more stitches, the one or more stiches being formed from a water-dissolvable material (see paragraphs 0006, 0009, 0015, 0016 and 0023 Capolupo discloses threads for stitching that are degradable, water soluble and dispersible and dissolves with time in the aqueous environment).
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tang (2011/0312241).
Regarding claim 1, Tang discloses a wearable item (see wearable item in figs. 4a-4b in paragraphs 0080-0081, having the breathable materials 10, 20 or 30 in figs. 1, 2, 3 respectively, paragraphs 0027-0054) comprising: a water dissolvable material that forms at least a majority of the wearable item (water dissolvable material can be layer 10 in fig. 1 or layer 20 in fig. 2, see paragraphs 0027-0054).
Regarding claim 2, Tang discloses a material connection that connects at least a first segment of water-dissolvable material with a second segment of the item (see paragraph 0084, films and fabrics layers can be bonded by mechanical bonding or adhesive bonding, furthermore, paragraphs 0027-0054 and figs. 1-3 discloses segments including 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 3, Tang discloses that the first segment is formed from water-dissolvable material of a first type, and the second segment is formed from a water-dissolvable material of a second type (see paragraphs 0019-0054, Tang discloses that the 11 is a water-soluble nonwoven fabric, while 12 is a water soluble polyvinyl alcohol film, a film made of water-dissolvable material is a different water-dissolvable material than a non-woven fabric that is made of a water-dissolvable fibers (see paragraph 0019)).
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 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Astete (WO 2021/243475) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Astete (WO 2021/243475) in view of Solle (2018/0168258).
Regarding claim 3, Astete discloses that the first segment is formed from water-dissolvable material of a first type, and the second segment is formed from water-dissolvable material of a second type (see paragraph 0062, Astete discloses that all of its layer of face mask 1 can be made up of different pieces of soluble material, and further discloses in paragraph 0061 that the layers 11, 12 and 13 can be a water-soluble material (PVA) at a temperature of at least 55° C, the inner and outer layers (11, 12) can have the same weight, while middle layer (13) has a different weight than the inner and outer layers, therefore, the first segment can be 11 or 12 while the second segment can be 13, each of 11/12 and 13 have a different weight, therefore, the water-dissolvable material of the second segment is of different type from the water-dissolvable material of the first segment due to the different weight).
However, if there is any doubt that Astete discloses that the first segment and the second segment are of different types of water dissolvable material.
Solle teaches a N95 filter layer made of a water-dissolvable non-woven polypropylene/polyester material (see paragraph 0020).
Therefore, 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 second segment (13 of Astete) to be made of a water-dissolvable nonwoven polypropylene/polyester material as taught by Solle for the purpose of providing an N95 filter material that is water-soluble, thereby providing protection to the user and the environment by being water-soluble (see paragraph 0020 of Solle).
After the modification the first segment (11 or 12 of Astete) is made of a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), while the second segment (13 of Astete modified to be an N95 filter material made of water-dissolvable nonwoven polypropylene/polyester material), PVA is a different type of water-dissolvable material compared to water dissolvable polypropylene/polyester material.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astete (WO 2021/243475) in view of Capolupo (2021/0289859).
Regarding claim 4, Astete discloses that the material connection can include stitching or adhesive (paragraphs 0062 and 0075), but fails to specifically disclose one or more stitches, the one or more stitches being formed from a water-dissolvable material.
Capolupo teaches one or more stitches, the one or more stitches being formed from a water-dissolvable material (see paragraphs 0006, 0009, 0015, 0016 and 0023 Capolupo discloses threads for stitching that are degradable, water soluble and dispersible and dissolves with time in the aqueous environment).
Therefore, 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 stitching of the material connection of Astete to be a stiches that are water-dissolvable as taught by Capolupo for the purpose of providing a water-soluble and biodegradable stitching material, thereby providing a disposable material that is safe for the environment (see paragraphs 0006, 0009, 0015, 0016 and 0023 of Capolupo).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Astete (WO 2021/243475) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Astete (WO 2021/243475) in view of Yamashita (2009/0007309).
Regarding claim 13, Astete discloses a first and a second fastening mechanism to fasten the face cover to a head of the user (see paragraphs 0027, 0029 and 0033-0034 and 0040, Astete discloses that the mask is a face mask and further discloses that lateral fastening elements 2 in figs. 1, 2 and 8, the lateral fastening element on the right side of the figure is a first and the one on the left side is a second). Astete discloses that the face cover is formed from water-dissolvable material of a first type, and the first fastening mechanism and the second fastening mechanism are formed from water dissolvable material of a second type (see paragraphs 0059 and 0061, the face cover is formed from different layers such as 11, 12 and 13, which are made of a water dissolvable material of a first type having a rectangular shape and is substantially larger than the lateral fastening element 2, see figs. 1, 2 and 8 and paragraph 0060 regarding the water soluble material of the lateral fastening elements 2, as shown and disclosed, the lateral fastening element 2 having a water dissolvable material having an elongated shape and is substantially thinner in the width direction compared to the face cover, therefore, the water-dissolvable material of the first and second fastening mechanism are of a second type).
However, if there is any doubt that Astete discloses that the first segment and the second segment are of different types of water dissolvable material.
Yamashita teaches a fabric having a fiber made of a water-dissolvable nylon yarn material (see paragraph 0067).
Therefore, 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 first and second fastening mechanism of Astete to be made from a water-dissolvable nylon yarn as taught by Yamashita for the purpose of providing an alternative fabric material that would be able to provide the predictable result of being water-dissolvable in order to allow the mask to be disposable in a way that is safe for the environment (see paragraph 0067 of Yamashita).
After the modification, the face cover is made of a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), while the fastening mechanism are made of a water-dissolvable nylon yarn, PVA is a different type of water-dissolvable material compared to water-dissolvable nylon yarn.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astete (WO 2021/243475) in view of Kaneko (KR 10-2014-0109796).
Regarding claim 16, Astete fails to disclose that each of the first and second fastening mechanism includes a slit that is dimensioned to engage a corner of the face cover.
However, Kaneko teaches a fastening mechanism (34 comprising 35, see figs. 5a, see paragraph 0028 of the English translation) includes a slit that is dimensioned to engage a corner of the face cover (30, fig. 5a and paragraph 0028, the corner of the face cover includes 30 and portion 32, wherein 32a and 32b forms a corner of the face cover, as shown, the corner engaged with the slit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the first and second fastening mechanisms of Astete to be the fastening mechanism as taught by Kaneko for the purpose of providing an alternative form of fastening mechanism that would allow the mouth to easily be exposed when needed while preventing discomfort or pain to the wearer’s ears (see pages 2-4 and paragraph 0028 of the English translation of Kaneko).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astete (WO 2021/243475) in view of Kaneko (KR 10-2014-0109796).
Regarding claim 17, Astete discloses a first and a second fastening mechanism to fasten the face cover to a head of the user, such that the face cover is positionable in front of a face of the user (see paragraphs 0027, 0029 and 0033-0034 and 0040, Astete discloses that the mask is a face mask and further discloses that lateral fastening elements 2 in figs. 1, 2 and 8, the lateral fastening element on the right side of the figure is a first and the one on the left side is a second), but fails to disclose an adhesive layer that is provided on at least a portion of one side of the face cover to adhere to the face cover to a face of a user.
However, Kaneko teaches a fastening mechanism (34 comprising 35, see figs. 5a, see paragraph 0028 of the English translation) includes a slit that is dimensioned to engage a corner of the face cover (30, fig. 5a and paragraph 0028, the corner of the face cover includes 30 and portion 32, wherein 32a and 32b forms a corner of the face cover, as shown, the corner engaged with the slit) and the face cover comprises an adhesive layer that is provided on at least a portion of one side of the face cover to adhere the face cover to a face of the user (see adhesive layer 32a, fig. 5a, paragraph 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the first and second fastening mechanisms of Astete to be the fastening mechanism as taught by Kaneko and modify the face cover of Astete to have the adhesive layer as taught by Kaneko for the purpose of providing an alternative form of fastening mechanism that would allow the mouth to easily be exposed when needed while preventing discomfort or pain to the wearer’s ears (see pages 2-4 and paragraph 0028 of the English translation of Kaneko).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Astete discloses that the face cover includes a middle layer formed from a filter (Astete discloses in paragraph 0061 that the mask can be composed to five overlapping layers 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 are water soluble material, and that the mask is for elimination of pathogens in paragraphs 0001 and 0033-0034, therefore, the middle layer 13 or 13/14 or 13/14/15 would be a filter layer, alternatively, see paragraph 0063, Astete discloses that the intermediate layer 13 is a filter layer).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astete (WO 2021/243475) in view of Brunson (5,322,061).
Regarding claim 20, Astete fails to disclose that the face cover is conical in shape.
However, Brunson teaches a face cover that is conical in shape (see fig. 1, see col 5, lines 1-18).
Therefore, 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 face cover of Astete to be conical in shape as taught by Brunson for the purpose of providing an alternative shape that would allow the mask to provide “off-the-face” benefits, thereby, permitting cooler and easier breathing (see col 5, lines 1-18 of Brunson).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 20150018307 is cited to show a water-dissolvable glove.
Zhamu (2021/0307428) is cited to show a mask comprising fibers made of water soluble material.
Tang (2007/0238384) is cited to show an article that is biodegradable and water-dissolvable.
Barr (2021/0361003) is cited to show a face mask comprising a strap having slits.
An (CN 111449329) is cited to show a biodegradable face mask.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TU VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1045. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:30 AM to 5:30 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, Justine Yu can be reached on 571-272-4835. 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.
/TU A VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785