DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Response to Election/Restriction filed 5/15/2025. Currently, claims 1-8, 10, 12-22, 27, 30, 31 and 34 are pending in the application. Claims 9, 11, 23-26, 28, 29, 32 and 33 are cancelled by Applicant. Claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn and not examined at this point.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1: Figures 1-7b (corresponding to claims 1-8, 10, 12, 13, 16-22, 27, 30, 31 and 34) in the reply filed on 5/15/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the valve recited in claims 14 and 15 can not only be used in Figure 8, but also could be used in any of the shells from other examples and therefore, if a generic claim is allowed, rejoinder of claims 14 and 15 is requested. The examiner acknowledges Applicant’s request.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/15/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to improve the clarity of the claim(s), “a user’s surroundings” in lines 1-2 of the claim should be amended to recite ---the user’s surroundings---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to improve the clarity of the claim(s), “a user’s voice” in line 2 of the claim should be amended to recite ---the user’s voice---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 12 is not structured as a sentence ending with a period, as required. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 18 is not structured as a sentence ending with a period, as required. 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: “sound attenuating structure” in claims 1, 12, 17-22, 27 and 30.
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.
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: “interfacing structure” in claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 17, 18, 21, 22 and 31.
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.
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: “ventilation structure” in claim 27.
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. Applicant’s disclosure teaches the following structure(s) as corresponding to the claimed function: a fan and a filter.
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 § 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.
Claim limitation “sound attenuating structure” (see claims 1, 12, 17-22, 27 and 30) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim limitation “interfacing structure” (see claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 17, 18, 21, 22 and 31) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 13 is 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 13, the term "acrylic-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 20 is 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. Claim 20 recites the limitation "the outer layer of the sound attenuating structure" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 is 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. Claim 21 recites the limitation "the three-dimensional chamber of the body" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 is 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 30, the term "foam-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 31 is 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 31, the term "foam-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
Claim 7 is 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). Claim 7 recites “the interfacing structure forms a seal with the user's face,” which is a claim limitation indicating that Applicant is attempting to claim the user’s face (which is non-statutory subject matter). Applicant should utilize “adapted to” or “capable of” language to avoid this error.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 17-19, 21, 22, 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Knitter (US 2024/0049815 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Knitter teaches in Figures 1 and 2 and [0055-0056] a body (respiratory protective device 100) configured to be positioned around a portion of the user's face (as shown in Figure 2; [0055] teaches “a respiratory protective device 100 that may cover the mouth and nose”), the body (respiratory protective device 100) comprising (as shown in Figure 1; [0055] teaches “the respiratory protective device includes a facepiece comprised of a face seal 114 and frame 112”): an interfacing structure (frame 112, face seal 114) configured to interface with the user's face ([0056] teaches “the facepiece may include a rigid or semi-rigid portion 112 and a compliant portion contacting a user's face 114”); a sound attenuating structure (filter 108, liner 110; can be considered “sound attenuating” inasmuch as the filter 108 and liner 110 provide a physical barrier to block and reduce movement of sound therethrough).
In regards to claim 2, Knitter teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Knitter teaches in Figure 1 and [0065] that the mask (respiratory protective device 100) is at least partially transparent to allow a line of sight from the outside to at least a portion of the user's face ([0065] teaches that the eye shield 118 of the respiratory protective device 100 “may be composed of various transparent or translucent materials,” which would permit a line of sight from the outside of the eye shield 118 to the user’s eyes).
In regards to claim 3, Knitter teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Knitter teaches in Figure 2 and [0056] that the interfacing structure (frame 112, face seal 114) comprises a mouth interface (face seal 114) configured to interface with the user's face around the user's mouth (as shown in Figure 2; [0056] teaches “the facepiece may include a rigid or semi-rigid portion 112 and a compliant portion contacting a user's face 114” and “the compliant portion of the facepiece that contacts the user's face is constructed to allow the facepiece to be supported comfortably over a user's mouth”).
In regards to claim 4, Knitter teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Knitter teaches in Figure 2 and [0056] that the interfacing structure (frame 112, face seal 114) comprises a mouth interface (portion of face seal 114 that is positioned over the user’s mouth is use) and a nose interface (portion of face seal 114 that is positioned over the user’s nose is use), configured to interface with the user's face around the user's nose and mouth (as shown in Figure 2; [0056] teaches “the facepiece may include a rigid or semi-rigid portion 112 and a compliant portion contacting a user's face 114” and “the compliant portion of the facepiece that contacts the user's face is constructed to allow the facepiece to be supported comfortably over a user's mouth and nose”).
In regards to claim 5, Knitter teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 4. Knitter teaches in Figures 1 and 2 that the nose interface (portion of face seal 114 that is positioned over the user’s nose is use) is configured to interface with at least a portion of the user's nares, inferior to the user's nasal ridge (the portion of face seal 114 that is positioned over the user’s nose is use is capable of being positioned in contact with at least a portion of the user's nares, inferior to the user's nasal ridge).
In regards to claim 6, Knitter teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 4. Knitter teaches in Figures 1 and 2 that the nose interface (portion of face seal 114 that is positioned over the user’s nose is use) is configured to interface with at least a portion of the user's nasal ridge, superior to the user's nares (the portion of face seal 114 that is positioned over the user’s nose is use is capable of being positioned in contact with at least a portion of the user's nasal ridge, superior to the user's nares).
In regards to claim 7, Knitter teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Knitter teaches in [0047] that the interfacing structure (frame 112, face seal 114) forms a seal with the user's face ([0047] teaches that “the term ‘face seal’ refers to a component that provides a seal to a user's face”).
In regards to claim 8, Knitter teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Knitter teaches in Figure 1 that the body (respiratory protective device 100) comprises an outer shell structure (shell cover 102, shell 104) defining a three dimensional shaped chamber (as shown in Figure 1, shell cover 102 and shell 104 are structured as curved, three-dimensional structures defining a chamber).
In regards to claim 17, Knitter teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 8. Knitter teaches in Figure 1 that at least a portion of the sound attenuating structure (filter 108, liner 110) is positioned between (as shown in Figure 1) the outer shell structure (shell cover 102, shell 104) and the interfacing structure (frame 112, face seal 114).
In regards to claim 18, Knitter teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Knitter teaches in Figure 1 and [0055] that the sound attenuating structure (filter 108, liner 110) comprises an inner layer (liner 110) and outer layer (filter 108), wherein at least a portion of the inner layer (liner 110) interfaces with (as shown in Figure 1; [0055] teaches that liner 110 “is removably held by frame 112 and face seal 114”) the interfacing structure (frame 112, face seal 114)
In regards to claim 19, Knitter teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Knitter teaches in [0061] and [0063] that the sound attenuating structure (filter 108, liner 110) reduces movement of sound into and out of the mask while allowing movement of air into and out of the mask ([0061] teaches that the filter 108 “allows fluid communication” of air therethrough; [0063] teaches that the liner 110 is composed of “meshes,” which is a porous structure that enables the passage of air therethrough; filter 108 and liner 110 provide a physical barrier to reduce movement of sound into and out of the mask).
In regards to claim 21, Knitter teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 8. Knitter teaches in Figures 1 and 2 the three-dimensional chamber of (as shown in Figure 1, respiratory protective device 100 is structured as a curved, three-dimensional structure defining a chamber for positioning of the user’s mouth therein) the body (respiratory protective device 100) is defined by at least a portion of (as shown in Figures 1 and 2) the interfacing structure (frame 112, face seal 114) and one or both the sound attenuating structure (filter 108, liner 110) and the outer shell structure (shell cover 102, shell 104).
In regards to claim 22, Knitter teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Knitter teaches in Figure 1 and [0055] that the sound attenuating structure (filter 108, liner 110) is integral with (inasmuch as the structures are attached to form a single unit, as shown in Figure 1; [0055] teaches “liner 110 may be formed in close apposition to the inner surface of filter 108 and is removably held by frame 112 and face seal 114”) the interfacing structure (frame 112, face seal 114).
In regards to claim 30, Knitter teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Knitter teaches in [0061] and [0063] that the sound attenuating structure (filter 108, liner 110) is made from a foam-like material ([0061] teaches that the filter 108 “allows fluid communication” therethrough, which is similar to the structure/function of an open-cell foam; [0063] teaches that the liner 110 is composed of “meshes,” which have a structure similar to that of an open-cell foam).
In regards to claim 31, Knitter teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Knitter teaches in [0056] that the interfacing structure (frame 112, face seal 114) is made from a foam-like material ([0056] teaches the face seal 114 being “complaint,” which is a material property similar to that of a foam material).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitter (US 2024/0049815 A1) in view of KI CHANG DO (KR 20110115373 A) (with reference to the attached translation).
In regards to claim 10, Knitter teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 8. Knitter teaches in Figures 1 and 2 that the outer shell structure (shell cover 102, shell 104) comprises an outer shell (shell cover 102) and an inner shell (shell 104), wherein the outer shell (shell cover 102) is further from the user's face than (as shown in Figures 1 and 2) the inner shell (shell 104).
Knitter does not teach that a vacuum cavity is located between the outer shell and the inner shell, the vacuum cavity being defined by a seal formed between the inner shell and outer shell.
However, KI CHANG DO teaches in the abstract and on page 4 an analogous device (“facemask,” taught in the abstract) wherein a vacuum cavity is located between (page 4 teaches “a vacuum is maintain between the outer shells 123, 120”) the outer shell and the inner shell (shells 123, 120), the vacuum cavity (page 4 teaches “a vacuum is maintain between the outer shells 123, 120”) being defined by a seal formed between (a vacuum is sealed, by definition) the inner shell and outer shell (shells 123, 120).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the outer and inner shells of Knitter to provide that a vacuum cavity is located between the outer shell and the inner shell, the vacuum cavity being defined by a seal formed between the inner shell and outer shell as taught by KI CHANG DO because this element is known to block heat transfer such that external fogging does not occur, as KI CHANG DO teaches on page 4.
In regards to claim 12, Knitter and KI CHANG DO teach the apparatus of claims 1, 8 and 10. Knitter teaches in Figure 1 that the inner shell (, shell 104) of the outer shell structure (shell cover 102, shell 104) interfaces with (as shown in Figure 1) the sound attenuating structure (filter 108, liner 110)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitter (US 2024/0049815 A1) in view of Chandler et al. (US 2021/0401086 A1).
In regards to claim 13, Knitter teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 8. Knitter teaches in [0064] that “shell cover 102 may be produced with different materials or surface finishes to attempt to optimize shell properties for different users.”
Knitter does not explicitly teach that the outer shell structure is formed from acrylic or an acrylic-like material.
However, Chandler et al. teaches in Figure 1 and [0102] an analogous device wherein the outer shell structure (impermeable membrane 102) is formed from acrylic ([0102] teaches “the impermeable membrane 102 may be made from a transparent or partially transparent plastic such as polyethylene terephthalate (“PET”), polycarbonate (A.K.A. Lexan™), acrylic, polylactic acid, or the like”) or an acrylic-like material ([0102] teaches “the impermeable membrane 102 may be made from a transparent or partially transparent plastic such as polyethylene terephthalate (“PET”), polycarbonate (A.K.A. Lexan™), acrylic, polylactic acid, or the like”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the outer shell structure of Knitter to be formed from acrylic or an acrylic-like material as taught by Chandler et al. because this element is known to be a “material suitable to conform to a user's face that does not allow the passage of damaging agents therethrough” and to “allow others to see the user's face as well, which may be beneficial for security reasons, as well as emotional reasons (e.g., doctors and nurses can better connect with patients when patients can see their entire face),” as Chandler et al. teaches in [0102].
Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitter (US 2024/0049815 A1) in view of Salvino et al. (US 2022/0047896 A1).
In regards to claim 16, Knitter teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 8. Knitter does not teach that the outer shell structure is at least partially transparent.
However, Salvino et al. teaches in Figures 1A and 1B and [0028] an analogous device wherein the outer shell structure (face covering cup 101) is at least partially transparent ([0028] teaches that “the face covering cup 101 is a unitary clear flexible molded PVC cup that extends over a person's nose 510, cheeks 514 and along their jawline 506” and “by unitary, it is meant that the clear flexible cup 101 is molded from a single piece of material”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the outer shell structure of Knitter to be at least partially transparent as taught by Salvino et al. because this element “does not visibly obstruct a person's mouth” and provides that “communication is certainly improved by virtue of seeing the wearer's face while they are speaking,” as Salvino et al. teaches in [0005].
In regards to claim 20, Knitter and Salvino et al. teach the apparatus of claims 1, 8 and 16. Knitter teaches in Figure 1 and [0061] that the outer layer (filter 108) of the sound attenuating structure (filter 108, liner 110) acts as a controlled path to attenuate sound ([0061] teaches that the filter 108 “allows fluid communication” therethrough, which provides defined/controlled path for the passage of sound therethrough; filter 108 can be considered “sound attenuating” inasmuch as the filter 108 provides a physical barrier to block and reduce movement of sound therethrough).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitter (US 2024/0049815 A1) in view of LIM et al. (US 2023/0405369 A1).
In regards to claim 27, Knitter teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Knitter teaches in [0061] and [0063] that the sound attenuating structure (filter 108, liner 110) comprises a ventilation structure ([0061] teaches that the filter 108 “allows fluid communication” of air therethrough, and thus, filter 108 permits ventilation of air therethrough; [0063] teaches that the liner 110 is composed of “meshes,” which is an open structure that permits passage of air and ventilation therethrough), the ventilation structure comprising a filter structure (filter 108; see [0061]).
Knitter does not teach that the ventilation structure also comprising a fan mechanism.
However, LIM et al. teaches in [0050] an analogous device with the ventilation structure (input fan 104 and the filter element received therein, and output fan 106 and the filter element received therein; taught in [0050]) also comprising (as taught in [0050]) a fan mechanism (input fan 104 and output fan 106).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the ventilation structure of Knitter to also comprise a fan mechanism as taught by LIM et al. because this element is known to provide that “air flow is generated within the inner space so that the wearer is able to breathe in fresh air instead of exhaled air,” as LIM et al. teaches in [0049].
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knitter (US 2024/0049815 A1) in view of HAMMER et al. (US 2021/0100969 A1).
In regards to claim 34, Knitter teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 8. Knitter does not teach that the outer shell structure made from a material that is non-rigid, pliable and/or flexible.
However, HAMMER et al. teaches in Figures 18A-19 and [0158] an analogous device with the outer shell structure (shell 420) made from a material that is non-rigid, pliable and/or flexible ([0158] teaches “the shell 420 and seal 430 can be soft or relatively soft and/or flexible”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the present invention to modify the outer shell structure of Knitter to be made from a material that is non-rigid, pliable and/or flexible as taught by HAMMER et al. because this element is known to “allow the mask 410 to adapt or conform to the user's face to form an adequate seal,” as HAMMER et al. teaches in [0158].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA H FISHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6:00AM-4:00PM EST.
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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at (571) 270-5237. 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 HICKS FISHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786 8/19/2025