DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 4/27/2026. 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 Claims 14 and 15 are withdrawn and not examined at this point.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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 is sufficient to overcome the previous objections to claim 1. Applicant’s amendment to claim 12 is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claim 12. Applicant’s amendment to claim 18 is sufficient to overcome the previous objection to claim 18.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 13 is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Applicant’s amendment to claim 20 is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Applicant’s amendment to claim 21 is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Applicant’s amendment to claim 30 is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Applicant’s amendment to claim 31 is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 12, 17-22, 27 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as reciting indefinite language “sound attenuating structure” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 12, 17-22, 27 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 11, 3, 4, 7, 17, 18, 21, 22 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as reciting indefinite language “interfacing structure” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 17, 18, 21, 22 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 7 is sufficient to overcome the previous rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “an interfacing structured having a contoured shape,” which is a claim limitation lacking proper antecedent basis in the specification. This is not an issue of new matter. Applicant should amend the specification to include the cited language to avoid this error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “a controlled path through which sound is guided,” which is a claim limitation lacking proper antecedent basis in the specification. This is not an issue of new matter. Applicant should amend the specification to include the cited language to avoid this error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 recites “a mouth interface configured to interface with a user’s face only around the user’s mouth,” which is a claim limitation lacking proper antecedent basis in the specification. This is not an issue of new matter. Applicant should amend the specification to include the cited language to avoid this error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 20 recites the wall comprising “a material configured to absorb sound as the sound moves along the controlled path to the outlet,” which is a claim limitation lacking proper antecedent basis in the specification. This is not an issue of new matter. Applicant should amend the specification to include the cited language to avoid this error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: in order to improve the clarity of the claim(s), “wherein chamber” in lines 1-2 of the claim should be amended to recite ---wherein the chamber---. 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, 17-19, 21, 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12, 13, 16-22, 27, 30, 31 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “a chamber to cover at least the mouth of the user.” No support is provided for this claim limitation in Applicant’s specification as originally filed. While it is clear that the chamber of the body 1002 is structured to cover the user’s mouth in use (see Applicant’s Figure 2, for instance), there is no teaching in Applicant’s original specification that the chamber can cover any and/or every anatomical structure beyond the user’s mouth (as permitted by the recitation of “at least”). Claims 2-8, 10, 12, 13, 16-22, 27, 30, 31 and 34 depend on claim 1 and therefore, include the same error.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12, 13, 16-22, 27, 30, 31 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “a sound attenuating structure configured to at least attenuate audible noise out of the chamber.” No support is provided for this claim limitation in Applicant’s specification as originally filed. While it is clear that the sound attenuating structure 1014 is configured to attenuate audible noise out of the chamber, there is no teaching in Applicant’s original specification that the sound attenuating structure performs function(s) beyond that (as permitted by the recitation of “at least”). Claims 2-8, 10, 12, 13, 16-22, 27, 30, 31 and 34 depend on claim 1 and therefore, include the same error.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12, 13, 16-22, 27, 30, 31 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “at least one wall.” No support is provided for this claim limitation in Applicant’s specification as originally filed. Applicant’s original specification does not teach the device having an infinite number of walls 1032, as permitted by the recitation of “at least one wall.” It appears from Applicant’s Figure 4b that the outer layer 1018 of the sound attenuating structure 1014 has two opposing walls defining the disclosed maze-like structure. Claims 2-8, 10, 12, 13, 16-22, 27, 30, 31 and 34 depend on claim 1 and therefore, include the same error.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 20 recites “at least one wall.” No support is provided for this claim limitation in Applicant’s specification as originally filed. Applicant’s original specification does not teach the device having an infinite number of walls 1032, as permitted by the recitation of “at least one wall.” It appears from Applicant’s Figure 4b that the outer layer 1018 of the sound attenuating structure 1014 has two opposing walls defining the disclosed maze-like structure.
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 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 21 and 34 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. Claim 8 recites “a three dimensional shaped chamber.” It is unclear if this recited “chamber” is the same as, or distinct from, the “chamber” that is previously recited in claim 1 (upon which claim 8 depends). Claims 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 21 and 34 depend on claim 8 and therefore, include the same error.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objection(s) and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Regarding claim 1, the prior art does not teach a mask for interfacing with a user’s face to reduce audible noise in the user’s surrounds resulting from the user’s voice that includes a chamber to cover the mouth of the user; and a sound attenuating structure configured to attenuate audible noise out of the chamber, the sound attenuating structure including a controlled path through which sound is guided, the controlled path having an inlet positioned within the chamber and walls configured to constrain the sound to move in a winding or tortuous manner, in combination with the other element(s) of the claim(s).
Claims 2-8, 10, 12, 13, 16-22, 27, 30, 31 and 34 depend on claim 1 and therefore, would also be allowed if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objection(s) and the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 8/3/2026
Prosecution Insights