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 .
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1 – 12. Claim 13 has been cancelled. Claims 14 – 19 have been withdrawn. Claims 1 – 12 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neimeyer (U.S. Patent No. 4,951,664), in view of Yang et al. (US 2015/0099411 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Neimeyer teaches a mask (i.e., “a respirator”) comprising a respirator main body (20, 20’, 20”) (Fig. 2 shown below), wherein the respirator further comprises a sealing foam (30, 30’, 30” & 32, 32’, 30”) attached to the respirator main body to cover at least a part of a peripheral edge of the respirator main body to be in contact with the face of a wearer; wherein the sealing foam comprises a compressible strip (30, 30’, 30”) (i.e., a main body part of the sealing foam”) (30, 30’, 30”) that is composed of foam (Col. 4, Line 49 – Col. 5, Line 6) and a third sealing material that is impermeable to air (32, 32’, 32”) (i.e., “air-proof film”) (Col. 4, Lines 7 – 27 & Neimeyer’s claim 1) the air-proof film being continuously provided on an upper surface of the main body part (Figs. 4 – 6 shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
220
142
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
458
362
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
372
428
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Neimeyer teaches the strip (30”) the same as strip (30) is fastened with adhesive or other known fastening mechanism to shell (40) near perimeter (22”), and “in the same fashion”, a third material (32”) the same as material (32) is fastened to both strip (30”) and shell (40) (Col. 6, Lines 38 – 53). In other words, Neimeyer teaches a third sealing material (32, 32’, 32”) is fastened to the compressive strip (30, 30’, 30”) via adhesive or other known fastening mechanism (i.e., “an anchoring layer”).
However, Neimeyer does not teach the anchor layer being partially embedded pores of the porous foam.
Yang et al. teach prepregs, cores, composites wherein a certain level of adhesive to enter into the porous prepreg to anchor the adhesive in the core (paragraphs [0096] & [0100]). By permitting some penetration of liquid adhesive but providing enhanced amounts on the surface of a porous substrate, delamination of components can be greatly reduced (paragraph [0089]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Yang et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to apply the adhesive taught by Neimeyer et al. as a liquid adhesive that partially penetrates (i.e., “embeds”) into the pores of the porous foam strip (30, 30’, 30”) for reducing the chance of delamination.
With regard to claim 3, as shown in Fig. 2 & 4 – 5, Neimeyer teaches the compressive strip (i.e., “main body part of the sealing foam”) has a first side surface and as second side surface opposite to the first side surface, the second side surface is used for being attached to the respirator so that the compressive strip covers at least a part of a peripheral edge of the respirator main body (20, 20’, 20”) of the respirator to be in contact with the face of a wearer, the first side surface faces the wearer, and the upper surface of the main body part faces the outside of the respirator.
With regard to claim 5, Neimeyer teaches the compressive layer (30, 30’, 30”) is a porous foam made from an open cell foam (i.e., “an open pore structure”) (Col. 4, Lines 61 – 63).
With regard to claim 7, Neimeyer teaches the third sealing (i.e., “air-proof”) material (32, 32’, 32”) is an elastic material, preferably composed of rubber (Col. 5, Lines 7 – 27).
With regard to claim 12, as shown in Fig. 6 above, Neimeyer teaches the compressive strip (30, 30’, 30”) (i.e., “main body part”) comprises a curved surface part, the curved surface part comprises a first convex part, a concave part, and a second convex part that are sequentially provided in the lengthwise direction of the sealing foam, the concave part is configured to accommodate the nose of the wearer, and the first convex part and the second convex part are symmetrical about the concave part.
Claim(s) 2 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neimeyer & Yang et al., as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Loughran (US 2020/0121004 A1).
With regard to claim 2, Neimeyer fail to teach the air permeability of the sealing foam in a direction perpendicular to the upper surface of the main body part is not greater than 0.02 L/min.
Loughran teaches a facial mask (i.e., respirator) comprising a foam sealer formed of a reticulated foam which may be classified by pores per inch, or PPI. A 10 PPI foam would have large cell structures and allow the most flow of air (i.e., high air permeability) while 80 PPI foam would have very small cells to be more restrictive (i.e., low air permeability). Preferably, the open cell foam within the foam sealer is about 75 to 85 PPI (paragraph [0055]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Loughran, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the pores per inch in any direction of the sealing foam taught by Neimeyer et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired air flow (i.e., air permeability) in said direction. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 6, Neimeyer fails to teach the pores per linear inch of the porous foam is in the range of 40 – 85 PPI.
Loughran teaches a facial mask (i.e., respirator) comprising a foam sealer formed a reticulated foam may be classified by pores per inch, or PPI. A 10 PPI foam would have large cell structures and allow the most flow of air (i.e., high air permeability) while 80 PPI foam would have very small cells to be more restrictive (i.e., low air permeability). Preferably, the open cell foam within the foam sealer is about 75 to 85 PPI (paragraph [0055]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Loughran, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the sealing foam of a face mask (i.e., respirator) taught by Neimeyer as a 75 to 85 PPI foam because a sealing foam would desirably have the least amount of air flow.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neimeyer & Yang et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gebrewold et al. (US 2008/0099022 A1).
With regard to claim 4, Neimeyer fails to teach the porous foam comprises: polyurethane, polyvinyl chloride, polypropylene, polyethylene, polyethylene vinyl acetate, and rubber.
Gebrewold et al. teach a respirator comprises mask body (32) and a nose foam (10), wherein the nose foam is a compressible porous foam composed of polyurethane, polyvinylchloride, polypropylene, polyethylene, polyethylene vinyl acetate, rubber, or combinations thereof (paragraph [0061]). The compressible material of the nose foam adapts to the shape of a person’s nose that will noticeably compress in response to pressure exerted from the mask body against a face in response to a force created by the mask’s harness system (paragraph [0061]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Gebrewold et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the porous foam taught by Neimeyer comprising polyurethane, polyvinyl chloride, polypropylene, polyethylene, polyethylene vinyl acetate, rubber, or combinations thereof, in order to form a compressible foam that adapts to the shape of a person’s nose when pressure is exerted on the mask body against the face.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neimeyer & Yang et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of R. H. Koza et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2,652,830 A).
With regard to claim 8, Neimeyer fails to teach the thickness of the third sealing material that is impermeable to air (32, 32’, 32”) (i.e., “air-proof film”).
Koza et al. teach a blank for a mask construction, wherein the blank is impervious to gas (i.e., “air”) at low pressure composed of polyethylene or PVC or other suitable materials. The thickness of the material may be on the order of one to three thousandths of an inch (8.47 – 25.4 microns) but is not critical as long as a reasonable degree of strength is provided (Col. 2, Lines 28 – 43).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Koza et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a layer impervious to gas (i.e., “an air-proof film”) of a thickness for a reasonable degree of strength, such as 8.47 – 25.4 microns, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 5 – 20 microns. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neimeyer & Yang et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 111409341 A).
With regard to claim 9, Neimeyer fails to teach the thickness of the adhesive/fastening layer (i.e., “the anchor layer”).
Liu et al. teach a medical mask comprising an outer protecting layer is joined to a water-repellent, oil-repellent, stain-resistant nonwoven cloth layer via an adhesive layer (pg. 3). A polyurethane elastomer-based hot-melt adhesive coated on the surface of the non-woven fabric (pg. 5 & examples) to form an adhesive layer with a thickness of 0.01 mm (10 µm) to 0.03 mm (30 µm) for desired adhesion (pg. 3).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Liu et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a 10 µm to 30 µm thick polyurethane elastomer-based adhesive layer for joining a porous layer and an outer layer of a medical (facial) mask, such as taught by Neimeyer et al., for desired adhesion of the said layers.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neimeyer & Yang et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Veliss et al. (WO 2009/109004 A1).
With regard to claim 10, Neimeyer teaches the third sealing (i.e., “air-proof”) material (32, 32’, 32”) is an elastic material, preferably composed of rubber (Col. 5, Liens 7 – 27), but does not teach the type of elastic material includes polyurethane, polyacrylate, neoprene, and/or polyvinyl acetate. Furthermore, Neimeyer does not teach the composition of the adhesive layer or fastening material (i.e., “anchor layer”) comprises polyurethane, polyacrylate, neoprene, and polyvinyl acetate.
Veliss et al. teach a respiratory mask assembly comprising an interfacing portion (i.e., foam interfacing the user’s face) that is impermeable to air and composed of a soft, viscoelastic polyurethane foam (paragraph [0046]) is adhered to another layer of the mask using a polyurethane hot melt glue (i.e., an anchoring adhesive layer) to provide a one-piece cushioning element with an interfacing portion adapted to engage the patients face and a clip portion adapted to interface with the mask frame (paragraph [0049]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Veliss et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the air-impermeable material taught by Neimeyer with viscoelastic polyurethane foam to form a soft material for engaging the person’s face and to use a hot-melt polyurethane adhesive for joining a polyurethane foam air-impermeable material (32) to the compressible foam (30) in order to form a one-piece cushioning element.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neimeyer, Yang et al., Veliss et al., as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Koza et al. & Liu et al.
With regard to claim 11, as discussed above for claim 10, Veliss et al. teach the adhesive (i.e., “anchor) layer and an air impermeable layer (i.e., “air-proof film”) are each composed of polyurethane (i.e., “the same material”).
As discussed above for claim 8, Koza et al. teach a blank for a mask construction, wherein the blank is impervious to gas (i.e., “air”) at low pressure composed of polyethylene or PVC or other suitable materials. The thickness of the material may be on the order of one to three thousandths of an inch (8.47 – 25.4 microns) but is not critical as long as a reasonable degree of strength is provided (Col. 2, Lines 28 – 43).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Koza et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a layer impervious to gas (i.e., “an air-proof film”) of a thickness for a reasonable degree of strength, such as 8.47 – 25.4 microns, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 5 – 20 microns. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As discussed above for claim 9, Liu et al. teach a medical mask comprising an outer protecting layer is joined to a water-repellent, oil-repellent, stain-resistant nonwoven cloth layer via an adhesive layer (pg. 3). A polyurethane elastomer-based hot-melt adhesive coated on the surface of the non-woven fabric (pg. 5 & examples) to form an adhesive layer with a thickness of 0.01 mm (10 µm) to 0.03 mm (30 µm) for desired adhesion (pg. 3).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Liu et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form a 10 µm to 30 µm thick polyurethane elastomer-based adhesive layer for joining a porous layer and an outer layer of a medical (facial) mask, such as taught by Neimeyer et al., for desired adhesion of the said layers.
As such, the referenced cited above teach the total thickness of the anchor layer and the air-proof film is in the range of 18.47 – 55.4 microns, which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 10 – 100 microns.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “Neimeyer reports a dust-filtering mask that aims to improve face fit and prevent air leakage by using a compressible foam strip 30 around the contact perimeter between the mask and the wearer’s face. A ‘third material’ 32 covers part of the foam strip 30 so it can adapt to facial contours while maintaining a seal during normal movements. In col. 9, lines 1 – 4, Neimeyer describes that the third material 32 is applied to the foam strip 30 as a liquid and allowed to cure thereon…This is required in all embodiments described by Neimeyer, as confirmed in col. 9, lines 62 – 62…”
“Thus, the Office misinterprets Neimeyer when it states the following on page 4 of the Office Action: “Neimeyer teaches a third sealing material (32, 32’ 32”) is fastened to the compressive strip (30, 30’, 30”) via adhesive or other known fastening mechanism (i.e., ‘an anchoring layer’).’ When Neimeyer describes fastening with ‘an adhesive or other known fastening mechanism’, it is referring to fastening the foam strip 30 to the sheet or filtering layer 16 of the mask…Perhaps the Office is confused by the first paragraph of col. 9, where Neimeyer first describes the liquid application of the third material, but then in the same paragraph describes the (different) fastening of the foam strip 30 to the shell of the filter material” (Remarks, Pg. 2).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner has not misinterpreted the teachings of Neimeyer. Applicant’s argument is based on only one embodiment taught by the reference for attaching the compressible strip (30) to the third sealing material (32). However, the Examiner cited a different embodiment taught by Neimeyer et al. to support the rejection. Neimeyer teaches the following:
Frame 36 is made of a substantially rigid material, like plastic, and shaped to substantially conform to the face of the mask wearer near the perimeter of the mask. Frame 36 may be made from a hand shaped, semi-rigid material. Preferably, frame 36 is endless and is fastened with adhesive or another known mechanism to the interior of the mask near the perimeter of the mask. Second and third materials 30' and 32' are then fastened to one another and to frame 36 in the same fashion as they are fastened to inner material 20 as described with respect to the preferred embodiment 10. In this way, frame 36 provides a more solid surface so that second material 30' may more readily compress between the face, especially the solid portions of the face, and frame 36. Alternately, frame 36 may be a hardened coating painted on filter material 20' (Col. 6, Lines 38 – 53).
Strip 30 is fastened with an adhesive or another known fastening mechanism to the inner material 20 of filtering layer 16 near perimeter 22 (Col. 4, Lines 59 – 61).
As shown above, Neimeyer teach an embodiment in which the second and third materials are fastened to each other in the same fashion as they are fastened to inner material 20, wherein the strip 30 30 is fastened to the inner material with an adhesive. Therefore, when considering the reference of Neimeyer in its entirety, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that Neimeyer teaches multiple embodiments in which the second and third materials 30’ and 32’ may be joined to each other, including an embodiment which an adhesive is used. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to join the second (30, 30’, 30”) and third materials (32, 32’, 32”) using by any means disclosed in the entirety of the reference.
MPEP 2123 [R-6]. II. states:
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 424 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ 2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
Applicant argues, “Yang describes prepregs, cores, and composite articles that incorporate repellent materials or repellent treatments to help reduce adhesive absorption into porous, open-cell structures. This disclosure merely reports controlling adhesive flow rates or repellency in thermoplastic composites, but does not disclose forming or curing an anchor layer in foam pores so as to mount a continuous impermeable film.
“Neither reference addresses – or even contemplates – a distinct ‘anchor layer’ that infiltrates the pores of the foam and then solidifies to form a continuous mechanical interlock with the porous main body part.
“Finally, even if the Office had established a prima facie rejection (which it has not), the Office’s rationale for combining the references is not sound. Even assuming someone of ordinary skill might use Yang’s approach to limit adhesive spread in Neimeyer’s foam, there is no disclosure, teaching, or motivation in the combined references to form a distinct anchor layer infiltrating the porous foam and then providing a continuous, seamless ‘air-proof film’ thereafter” (Remarks, Pg. 3).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As discussed above, Neimeyer teaches an adhesive for joining the second layer to the third layer. Yang teaches adhesives that enter into a porous prepreg to anchor into a prepreg/core for reducing delamination. Therefore, the combined teachings of Yang et al. teach a motivation for the adhesive between the second and third materials taught by Neimeyer to be partially embedded into the foam of the second material.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As previously discussed, Neimeyer teaches third sealing material that is impermeable to air (32, 32’, 32”) (i.e., “air-proof film”) (Col. 4, Lines 7 – 27 & Neimeyer’s claim 1) the air-proof film being continuously provided on an upper surface of the main body part (Figs. 4 – 6 shown below).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights