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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Claims 63-74 and 80-82 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/13/2026. Currently claims 75-79 are pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 75 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 75 recites “the depressions” in the second to last line. This should read “the plurality of depressions”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 75-79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANGADJIVAND et al. (CN 107072341 A). The examiner notes the translation is relied upon in the rejection set forth below (provided by the examiner in the restriction requirement).
Regarding claim 75, ANGADJIVAND discloses:
a mask body (12; see also page 5, paragraph 2) that includes a sheet (figure 3 shows the sheet including 30+ 40; page 6, paragraph 6 under preferred embodiment), the sheet including:
a first fiber layer (40); and
a second fiber layer (30) on one surface side of the first fiber layer (see figure 3).
Figure 3 does not disclose specifics about the second fiber layer material (filter layer 30).
However, another embodiment of a filter layer (408 figure 4) is disclosed (page 12 paragraph 3).
408 is disclosed as also being able to assume a variety of shapes including being corrugated (page 13, paragraph 2 beginning with “Generally”). One could have substituted the material of 30 with the material of 408 and the results would have been predictable to one having ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify 30 to include the material of 408 as both are filtering structures and the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). The examiner notes the shape of 30 is not being modified.
As modified, ANGADJIVAND further discloses wherein the second fiber layer has:
a higher trapping ratio for particles having a particle diameter exceeding 1 um (page 13, paragraph beginning with “Generally”: filtering layer a high percentage of the remove particles and/or other contaminants from the gas flow through it) than the first fiber layer (page 10 paragraph 6 discusses how 40 is highly open to allow sufficient airflow through filter 30; it is the examiner’s position that a filter inherently has a higher trapping ratio than a highly open layer), and
a smaller average fiber diameter (diameter of filter layer as set forth on page 13, paragraph beginning with “Generally”, the diameter is less than 20 microns) than the first fiber layer (40 has diameters as set forth on page 10, paragraph 5 ranging from 0.05 mm to 2mm and claim 14), a basis weight of the second fiber layer is from 1 to 20 g/m2 (Page 13, paragraph beginning with “Generally”, the basis weight can be from about 20 to 40 g/m2 and about 10 to 30g/m2),
in a natural state, the second fiber layer has:
a plurality of projections (36) projecting away from a first surface of the second fiber layer facing the first fiber layer; and
a plurality of depressions (34) that are each arranged between corresponding projections of the plurality of projections, and
the depressions have joined portions where the first fiber layer and the second fiber layer are joined to each other (see figure 3; page 9, paragraph 2).
In the case that it is not inherent that the second layer has a higher trapping ratio for particles having a particle diameter exceeding 1 um than the first fiber layer, ANGADJIVAND discloses that the filter layer is selected to achieve a desired filtering effect, making it a results effective variable in that changing the filter layer affects the filtering effect and thus also affects the higher trapping ratio for particles having a particle diameter exceeding 1 um.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of ANGADJIVAND such that the second layer has a higher trapping ratio for particles having a particle diameter exceeding 1 um than the first fiber layer as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 76, while ANGADJIVAND discloses the resistance of the filter layer (last paragraph on page 12), ANGADJIVAND does not explicitly disclose wherein a ventilation resistance of an entirety of the sheet is greater than 0 kPa-s/m and 0.25 kPa-s/m or less, and wherein the trapping ratio and the ventilation resistance of the entirety of the sheet satisfy a formula (1) below:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where R is the ventilation resistance and H is the trapping ratio.
However, ANGADJIVAND discloses that layers are chosen to minimize breathing work of the mask user (last paragraph of page 12) and further discloses that the filter layer is selected to achieve a desired filtering effect, making the selection of a layer/filter layer a results effective variable, in that changing the layer/filter layer affects the ventilation resistance (breathing work) as well as the filtering effect (and thus also affects the higher trapping ratio for particles having a particle diameter exceeding 1 um).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of ANGADJIVAND such that a ventilation resistance of an entirety of the sheet is greater than 0 kPa-s/m and 0.25 kPa-s/m or less, and wherein the trapping ratio and the ventilation resistance of the entirety of the sheet satisfy a formula (1) below:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where R is the ventilation resistance and H is the trapping ratio as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 77, ANGADJIVAND as modified discloses the claimed invention of claim 75 substantially as claimed. Currently ANGADJIVAND does not explicitly disclose wherein a third fiber layer is on a second surface of the second fiber layer that is opposite to the first surface of the second fiber layer facing the first fiber layer.
However, figure 4 of ANGADJIVAND teaches it is known to provide a third fiber layer (406) on a second surface of the second fiber layer (bottom surface of 408 as shown in figure 4, labeled the inner surface as per page 12 paragraph 3; similar to bottom surface of 30 since 40 is on the outer surface of 30 as per page 11, paragraph 3) that is opposite to the first surface of the second fiber layer facing the first fiber layer (opposite where 408 connects to 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have modified ANGADJIVAND further such that a third fiber layer is on a second surface of the second fiber layer that is opposite to the first surface of the second fiber layer facing the first fiber layer as taught by ANGADJIVAND for the benefit of providing a forming layer (page 12, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 78, ANGADJIVAND as modified discloses the claimed invention of claim 75 substantially as claimed. ANGADJIVAND further discloses that (406) follows the contours of the filter 408 as shown in figure 4. Since 408 is replacing 30 while maintaining the original shape of 30, it follows that the third fiber layer has a projecting and depressed shape that conforms to the second fiber layer (408).
Regarding claim 79, ANGADJIVAND as modified discloses the claimed invention of claim 77 substantially as claimed. Currently ANGADJIVAND does not explicitly disclose wherein a fourth fiber layer is on a third surface of the third fiber layer that is opposite to a fourth surface of the third fiber layer facing the second fiber layer, or wherein the fourth fiber layer is on a fifth surface of the first fiber layer that is opposite to a sixth surface of the first fiber layer facing the second fiber layer.
However, figure 4 of ANGADJIVAND teaches it is known to provide a fourth fiber layer (402) is on a third surface of the third fiber layer (bottom surface of 406) that is opposite to a fourth surface of the third fiber layer (top surface of 406) facing the second fiber layer, or wherein the fourth fiber layer is on a fifth surface of the first fiber layer that is opposite to a sixth surface of the first fiber layer facing the second fiber layer (the examiner notes this is an alternative limitation and thus is not required by the instant claim language).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have modified ANGADJIVAND further such that a fourth fiber layer is on a third surface of the third fiber layer that is opposite to a fourth surface of the third fiber layer facing the second fiber layer as taught by ANGADJIVAND to provide a comfortable feeling (page 12, paragraph 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Braun et al. (US 5,753,343)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785