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 Figs. 1-3 and 5 contain improper shading of straps 9 (see MPEP 608.02(V)(m)). 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 7, and 10-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a space or channel” in line 13 and is suggested to read --a space or a channel-- in order to ensure proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites “said space or channel” in lines 15-16 and is suggested to read --said space or said channel-- in order to ensure proper antecedent basis.
Claim 2 recites “the space or channel” in line 2 and is suggested to read --the space or the channel-- in order to ensure proper antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites “said wall” in line 2 and is suggested to read --said external wall-- in order to more clearly reference how the limitation was originally claimed.
Claim 7 recites “this additional filtering member” in line 3 and is suggested to read --the additional filtering member-- in order to ensure proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites “and wherein said side parts of said rear plate, of the filter and of the grill element overlapping” in line 6 and is suggested to read --and wherein said side parts of said rear plate, said side parts of the filter, and said side parts of the grill element overlap-- in order to provide additional clarity.
Claim 11 recites “said space or channel” twice in lines 1 and 3-4 and is suggested to read --said space or said channel-- in order to ensure proper antecedent basis.
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 limitations 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 limitations are: “hooking means for fastening” in claim 1 line 4, “a support element for supporting” in claim 1 line 4, “spacer members suitable to keep said additional filtering member separated” in claim 1 lines 9-10, “spacer means…to keep the filter separated” in claim 2 lines 1-2, and “fastening means for fastening” in claim 7 line 2.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to the Applicant’s specification para. [0037], the limitation “hooking means for fastening” in claim 1 line 4 is being interpreted as end hooks, and equivalents thereof. According to the Applicant’s specification para. [0004] and para. [0021], the limitation “a support element for supporting” in claim 1 line 4 is being interpreted as straps, and equivalents thereof. According to the Applicant’s specification para. [0034] and para. [0042], the limitation “spacer members suitable to keep said additional filtering member separated” in claim 1 lines 9-10 is being interpreted as ribs, and equivalents thereof. According to the Applicant’s specification para. [0034] and para. [0042], the limitation “spacer means…to keep the filter separated” in claim 2 lines 1-2, is being interpreted as ribs, and equivalents thereof. According to the Applicant’s specification para. [0038], the limitation “fastening means for fastening” in claim 7 line 2 is being interpreted as eyelets, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the mask “ in lines 3 and 13 is confusing, as it is unclear whether the “mask unit” or “face mask” limitations are being referenced, and thus the scope of the claim is unclear. The limitations of "the face" in line 5, “the air exhaled” in line 6, “the front” in line 7-8, “the sides” in line 8, “the passage” in line 10, “the circulation” in line 16, “the entire surface” in line 17 are recited, and there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The limitation “the exhalation valve” recited five times in lines 6, 12-15, and 17 is confusing, as it is unclear whether the same exhalation valve of the “at least one exhalation valve” in line 2 is being referenced, as there can be multiple, and thus the scope of the claim is unclear. The limitation “air” in line 10 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is the same as or different from “the air exhaled” in line 6. For the purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as the same limitation. The limitations “opens and which receives” in line 14, “exits” in line 14, “is distributed” in line 17, and “exits” in line 18 are confusing, as they are recite active verbs and so imply method steps while the claim is for an apparatus, and thus the scope of the claim is unclear. It is suggested to use claim language such as --configured to--, --adapted for--, and --able to-- in order to avoid claiming method steps in an apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “spacer means” in line 1 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be the same as or different from the “spacer members” of claim 1, particularly as both their 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretations have these limitations as ribs. Moreover, the limitation “the passage of exhaled air” in lines 2-3 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is the same as or different from “the passage of air” in claim 1. Additionally, claim 2 recites the limitation "the exit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, the limitation “the exhalation valve” in line 3 is confusing, as it is unclear which exhalation valve of the “at least one exhalation valve” and “the exhalation valve” limitations in claim 1 is being referenced, as there can be multiple, and thus the scope of the claim is unclear.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the exhalation valve” in line 2 is confusing, as it is unclear which exhalation valve of the “at least one exhalation valve” and “the exhalation valve” limitations in claim 1 is being referenced, as there can be multiple, and thus the scope of the claim is unclear.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the exhalation valve” in line 1 is confusing, as it is unclear which exhalation valve of the “at least one exhalation valve” and “the exhalation valve” limitations in claim 1 is being referenced, as there can be multiple, and thus the scope of the claim is unclear.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the inner walls” in line 4 is confusing, as only “an inner wall” was originally claimed in line 2 and thus the scope of the claim is unclear. Moreover, the limitation “the mask “ recited twice in lines 5-6 is confusing, as it is unclear whether the “mask unit” or “face mask” limitations from claim 1 are being referenced, and thus the scope of the claim is unclear. Furthermore, the limitation “one or more channels” in lines 5-6 is confusing, as it is unclear as to whether the “channel” recited in claim 1 is meant to be included. Additionally, claim 6 recites the limitation "the inflow" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the mask “ recited in line 2 is confusing, as it is unclear whether the “mask unit” or “face mask” limitations from claim 1 are being referenced, and thus the scope of the claim is unclear. Moreover, claim 6 recites the limitation "the same time" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the exhalation valve” in line 2 is confusing, as it is unclear which exhalation valve of the “at least one exhalation valve” and “the exhalation valve” limitations in claim 1 is being referenced, as there can be multiple, and thus the scope of the claim is unclear. Moreover, the limitation “said rear plate comprises…houses…side parts” in lines 2-3 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this is meant to reference the sides of the face mask of claim 1 as being housed, or if this is meant to be a new limitation, i.e. said rear plate comprising side parts of its own. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as being a new limitation. Furthermore, the limitation “the mask “ recited in line 7 is confusing, as it is unclear whether the “mask unit” or “face mask” limitations from claim 1 are being referenced, and thus the scope of the claim is unclear.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “its” in line 2 is confusing, as it is unclear as to what limitation is being referenced.
Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, the prior art of record does not disclose nor sufficiently teach a mask unit comprising a face mask for protection against particulate contaminants, the face mask having at least one exhalation valve, said face mask having a body having lateral inhalation filters inserted in corresponding seats, the body of the mask cooperating with hooking means for fastening to a support element for supporting the face mask on a user's the face, said mask unit being provided with an additional filtering member adapted to filter the air exhaled by the user emitted by the exhalation valve, wherein said additional filtering member is an independent element from the face mask and is arranged on and fixed to the front and the sides of the face mask above the lateral inhalation filters, said additional filtering member having spacer members suitable to keep said additional filtering member separated from the face mask so to permit the passage of air directed to said lateral inhalation filters, said additional filtering member comprising a sandwich structure having a filter enclosed between a grill element and a rear plate adapted to accommodate the exhalation valve of the mask, inside said sandwich structure a space or channel being defined wherein the exhalation valve opens and which receives the exhaled air which exits from the face mask through said exhalation valve, between said filter and the rear plate said space or channel being defined so to permit the circulation of the exhaled air coming from the exhalation valve which is distributed along the entire surface of the filter of the additional filtering member and that exits from the additional filtering member through the grill element.
Regarding claims 2-11, as best understood, these claims are dependent upon claim 1 which was indicated to have allowable subject matter, and thus would also be considered to have allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2008/0223370 A1 by Kim is considered to be relevant as it discloses a mask with an outer shell for exhalation which also covers inhalation filter structures, as well as having exhalation valves, straps, and fasteners.
US 4,630,604 by Montesi is considered to be relevant as it discloses a respirator wherein a filter is sandwiched between a grid and a rear plate with ribs.
US 2016/0310769 A1 by Tang et al. is considered to be relevant as it discloses a respirator with a venting system wherein exhaled air is both vented from the mask as well as recirculated inside the mask.
US 2017/0021203 A1 by Baker et al. is considered to be relevant as it discloses a respirator with inhalation filters, an exhalation valve, and an exhalation filter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:00.
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.
/JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785