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 .
Preliminary Amendment
This office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 2/27/23. As directed by the amendment: claim 20 has been amended, claims 21-29 have been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-20 are presently pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "18" and "18A" and “18B” have both been used to designate “interior surface,” and reference characters “20B” and “20” have both been used to designate “exterior surface,” and “12A” and “12B” and “12” have both been used to designate “filter body,” and reference characters “50” and “200” have both been used to designate “chin fold.” 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “42” has been used to designate both “filter body” and “bottom portion,” and reference character “38” has been used to designate both “exterior surface” and “filter body”. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to because reference character 18a in fig. 2B is suggested to be changed to 18 in order to properly indicate the exterior surface. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 54 and 124. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 16a, 54c, 54d, 16b, 32a, 32b, 10a, 14a, 20a, 124b, 124a. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: a period is missing at the end of paragraph 52. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1-3 and 19-20 recite “sufficiently” however it is unclear what the scope of this language includes with respect to the language following sufficiently.
Claim 20 recites “the pinched portion,” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law et al. (2021/0352976) in view of Barghini (3,333,585).
Regarding claim 1, in fig. 1 Law discloses a face mask comprising: a flexible [0032] filter body (made from outer layer 15 and inner layer 16 [0027-0028]) configured to fit over at least the mouth and nose of a wearer (Fig. 5), the flexible filter body having: an interior surface (inner surface of 15 or inner surface of 16) configured to be positioned towards the face of the wearer; an exterior surface (exterior surface of 15 or exterior surface of 16) configured to be positioned away from the face of the wearer; a periphery comprising: a top portion configured to extend across the nose and infraorbital areas of the wearer (upper length where 11 resides); a left side portion (near 21) and a right side portion (near 20) configured to extend across the cheeks of the wearer (Fig. 5); and a bottom portion (opposite length to where 11 resides) configured to extend across or under the chin of the wearer (Fig. 5); a shape-preserving sealing strip (11 [0032]) extending along the top portion, but is silent regarding that the shape-preserving sealing strip extends along the left side portion, the right side portion, and the bottom portion of the filter body. However, Barghini teaches a shape-preserving sealing strip 4 that extends along the top portion, the left side portion, the right side portion, and the bottom portion of a filter body (Col. 5, ll. 26-29, Col. 5, ll. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Law’s shape-preserving sealing strip with a shape-preserving sealing strip that further extends around the entire periphery of the mask, as taught by Barghini, for the purpose of providing a further sealing to the mask. The modified Law discloses that the shape-preserving sealing strip integral with the filter body is configured to sufficiently seal the face mask against the wearer's face to minimize or prevent entry and/or exit of airborne particulate matter ([0032] Law, Col. 5, ll. 4 Barghini); and an ear strap (20 and 21, Law) and/or a head strap attached to the filter body configured to secure the face mask to the wearer's face.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Law discloses that the shape-preserving sealing strip is deformable ([0032] Law) and configured to be moldable by the wearer's hand to sufficiently seal the face mask against the wearer's face ([0032] and claim 11 of Law, Col. 5, ll. 4 Barghini).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Law discloses that the moldablility is a combination of easily bendable by the wearer ([0032] and claim 11 of Law, Col. 5, ll. 4 Barghini), sufficiently stiff to maintain its shape ([0032] and claim 11 of Law, Col. 5, ll. 4 Barghini) and sufficiently plastic to have a low spring back as it is being formed ([0032] and claim 11 of Law, Col. 5, ll. 4 Barghini).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Law discloses that the left side portion and the right side portion are configured to extend vertically across the cheeks of the wearer (Fig. 5 Law).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Law discloses that the shape-preserving sealing strip is fabricated from a non-foam material ([0030] Law).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Law discloses that the shape-preserving sealing strip is disposed on the interior surface (inner surface of 15, Law [0027]) of filter body.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Law discloses that the shape-preserving sealing strip is disposed on the exterior surface (exterior surface of 16, Law [0027]) of the filter body.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Law discloses that the shape-preserving sealing strip is disposed between the exterior surface and the interior surface of the filter body (Law [0027] the strip is disposed between the exterior surface of 16 and the interior surface of 15).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Law discloses that the shape-preserving sealing strip extends along the entire periphery of the flexible filter body (Col. 5, ll. 26-29, Barghini).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Law discloses that the shape-preserving sealing strip extends along the majority of the periphery of the flexible filter body (Col. 5, ll. 26-29, Barghini).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Law discloses that the shape-preserving sealing strip extending along the bottom portion of the face mask is sufficiently malleable such that opposing surfaces of the strip can be pinched together to tighten the seal of the face mask at or under the chin of the wearer (since the strip is able to be bent by the user to conform to the user’s face it therefore able to be pinched together to tighten the seal of the face mask at or under the chin of the wearer, [0032] Law).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law and Barghini, as applied to claim 3 above, in further view of (“Nose Wire” Anping Bochuan Wire Mesh Co., 2019).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Law is silent regarding that the shape-preserving sealing strip is constructed from iron wire with a diameter between 0.45 and 0.55 mm. However, Anping teaches a shape-preserving sealing strip is constructed from iron wire with a diameter between 0.45 and 0.55 mm (Pages 3-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Law’s shape-preserving sealing strip material with an iron wire with a diameter between 0.45 and 0.55 mm, as taught by Anping, for the purpose of providing an alternate shape-preserving sealing strip having the predictable results of conforming a mask to a user’s face.
Claims 12-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law and Barghini, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Koehler (2015/0040910).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Law is silent regarding a plurality of flaps, each flap having one end attached to the periphery of the interior surface of the filter body and another opposing free open end facing towards the center of the filter body. However, in fig. 3 Koehler teaches a plurality of flaps (14, 15 and 16), each flap having one end attached to the periphery of the interior surface of the filter body and another opposing free open end facing towards the center of the filter body (fig. 3 [0099]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Law’s mask with the addition of a plurality of flaps, as taught by Koehler, for the purpose of providing a further seal the user’s face (abstract [0099] Koehler).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Law discloses that the plurality of flaps comprising: a right flap (15 on the right side, Koehler) disposed on the right side portion of the interior surface of the filter body, the right flap having one end attached to the periphery of the face mask on the right side portion and having an opposing free end facing towards the center of the face mask (Fig. 3 Koehler); and a left flap (15 on the left side, Koehler) disposed on the left side portion of the interior surface of the filter body, the left flap having one end attached to the periphery of the face mask on the left side portion and having an opposing free end facing towards the center of the face mask (Fig. 3 Koehler).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Law discloses that the plurality of flaps further comprising: a top flap (one of 14, Koehler) disposed on the top portion of the interior surface of the filter body, the top flap having one end attached to the periphery of the face mask on the top portion and having an opposing free end facing towards the center of the face mask (Fig. 3, Koehler); and a bottom flap (16 Koehler) disposed on the bottom portion of the interior surface of the filter body, the bottom flap having one end attached to the periphery of the face mask on the bottom portion and having an opposing free end facing towards the center of the face mask (Fig. 3, Koehler).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Law discloses that the shape-preserving sealing strip is disposed directly on the interior surface of the filter body such that the shape-preserving sealing strip is sandwiched between the interior surface and the plurality of flaps ([0027] of Law discloses that that the sealing strip 11 is between layers 15 and 16 and therefore 11 is directly in contact with inner surface of 15 and 11 is between inner surface of 15 and flaps taught by Koehler).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Law discloses that the bottom flap attachment is sufficiently sealed to the mask filter body to trap a portion of exiting airflow from escaping through the pinched portion of the mask (abstract, [0113] Koehler).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law and Barghini, as applied to claim 7 above, in further view of Chan (2022/0007756).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Law is silent regarding a cushion disposed on the shape-preserving sealing strip such that the shape-preserving sealing strip is sandwiched between the interior surface of the filter body and the cushion. However, in fig. 1B Chan teaches a cushion 60 disposed on the shape-preserving sealing strip 20 such that the shape-preserving sealing strip is sandwiched between the interior surface (inner surface of 11) of the filter body and the cushion [0090]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Law’s mask with the addition of a cushion, as taught by Chan, for the purpose of providing a cushioning effect between the nose bridge and the shape-preserving sealing strip, so as to reduce the user's discomfort rendered by the deformed shape-preserving sealing strip after a long use ([0090] Chan).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law, Barghini and Chan, as applied to claim 16 above, in further view of Hecht (1,221,446).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Law discloses that the cushion is disposed on the shape-preserving sealing strip at the top portion (Fig. 1B Chan), but is silent regarding that the cushion is disposed on the shape-preserving sealing strip at the right portion, and the left portion of the filter body. However, in fig. 1 Hecht teaches a cushion that is disposed on the shape-preserving sealing strip at the right portion, and the left portion of the filter body (cushion d is disposed around the perimeter of make D, page 1, ll. 60-73). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Law’s cushion with a cushion extending around the entire periphery of the mask, as taught by Hecht, for the purpose of providing a cushioning effect between the user and the shape-preserving sealing strip.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law and Barghini, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Miura (5,727,544).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Law is silent regarding a deformable nose bridge extending at least partially across the top portion of the filter body and configured to be positioned across the nose of the wearer. However, in fig. 2B Miura teaches a deformable nose bridge 21 extending at least partially across the top portion of the filter body and configured to be positioned across the nose of the wearer (Col. 6, ll. 13-16) in addition to the shape-preserving sealing strip 11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Law’s mask with the addition of a deformable nose bridge, as taught by Miura, for the purpose of providing further sealing means.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Orofino (2015/0306432), Koehler (2012/0103339) and Liu (2021/0401085) directed towards face masks with shape-preserving sealing strips.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL T SIPPEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1481. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justine Yu can be reached at 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.
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785