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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to an amendment filed on 12/18/2025. As directed by the amendment, claims 36, 39, and 43 were amended, claims 1-24, 27, 33, 44, 48 and 50 were cancelled and new claims 51-54 were added. Thus, claims 25-26, 28-32, 34-43, 45-47, 49 and 51-54 are presently pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations “the at least one internal structure is in a form of at least one strand” (claim 31, lines 1-2), “the at least one strand is held in a taut position such that deformation in one location translated to movement in another region” (claim 32, lines 1-3), “the at least one internal structure is in a form of a chain link” (claim 34, lines 1-2), “the at least one internal structure is in a form of a spiral” (claim 35, lines 1-2), “the at least one strand is suspended in a central position within the seal portion” (claim 36, lines 1-2) and “the at least one strand resists contacting a membrane of the seal portion” (claim 37, lines 1-2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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
Claim 53 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 53, line 2, the limitation “the inducement of a clam-shelling movement” is suggested to be changed to --an inducement of a clam-shelling movement-- in order to clarify the claim.
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: the limitation “at least one internal structure… able to provide controlled deformation to the respiratory mask” (claim 25, lines 11-16, the term “structure” is a generic placeholder and the function is “able to provide controlled deformation to the respiratory mask”).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 25-26, 28-30, 39-40, 42-43, 45, 47, 49 and 51-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Galleher (2,877,764).
PNG
media_image1.png
969
828
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Galleher discloses a respiratory mask (entire mask assembly in figs. 1-4, see cols 2-3, the mask can be adjusted to fit differently-shaped human faces since the contour of the mask can be adjusted by manipulating the valve stem 15) able to fit a plurality of differently-shaped human faces, the respiratory mask comprising: a frame portion (frame portion of 2, figs. 1-4, col 2, lines 27-67) comprising a perimeter portion and a conduit connection portion (see the annotated-Galleher fig. 2 above, the conduit connection portion is portion of 3, col 2, lines 27-34); a seal portion (see the annotated-Galleher fig. 2 above) connected to the perimeter portion of the frame portion, the seal portion comprising a sealing surface and a connecting surface, the connecting surface being connected to the perimeter portion, the sealing surface able to form a seal with a portion of the human face (see the annotated-Galleher fig. 2 above, as shown, the connecting surface is being connected to the perimeter portion and the sealing surface is the surface of 6 that contacts the wearer); a granular chamber (see the annotated-Galleher figs. 1-4 above, the granular chamber is defined as the space where the granular material “P” and the screen 14 and portion of 13’ are positioned within) located in the seal portion and container a granular material (“P”, see the annotated-Galleher figs. 1-4 above, the granular material is positioned within the granular chamber defined by 2 and the seal 6, see col 3, lines 3-16), the granular chamber configured to be transitioned between a conforming state and a fixed stated (see col 2, line 41 to col 3, line 60, the granular chamber can be air out and then be fixed in a contoured position to hold a particular shape, therefore, the conforming state is defined as when there is an abundant amount of air within the chamber and/or when the air is slowly leaving the valve device 9, and the fixed state is defined as once all the air exit the granular chamber enough to hold a desired fixed state), at least one internal structure (the screen 14 is the internal structure, which is within the granular chamber and is surrounded by the granular material on 3 sides, alternatively, the internal structure is screen 14 and 13’, alternatively, the internal structure can be a single grain/granule that is being surrounded by a plurality of granules, see the annotated-Galleher figs. 1-4 above) within the granular chamber that is separate from and surrounded by the granular material, the at least one internal structure having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the granular material acts on a surface area of each of the first surface and second surface of the at least one internal structure to provide a reaction force that is able to provide controlled deformation to the respiratory mask in response to the granular chamber transitioning from the conforming state to the fixed state (see col 2-col 3 and the annotated-Galleher figs. 1-4 above, since the screen 14 or the single graine/granule are physical structures that has a particular rigidity and comprises a first surface and an opposite second surface, therefore, when the granular material acts on a surface area of each of the first surface and the second surface of the at least one internal structure, a reaction force that is able to provide controlled deformation would be provided to the respiratory mask in response to the granular chamber transitioning from the conforming state to the fixed state, since the internal structure are responsible for delimiting the surrounding granular material to a certain degree to hold a particular shape).
Regarding claim 26, Galleher discloses that compressing the seal portion result in the at least one internal structure pulling sides of the seal portion inwards towards a nose of the human face (see cols 2-3, as disclosed by Galleher, there is increasing stiffness when the air are vented via the valve device 9, and would allow the mask to take different size, therefore, relatively, when a vacuum is created through the venting of air via the valve device 9, the seal portion would be pulled toward the patient’s face/nose due to compression of the granules and manual compression).
Regarding claim 28, Galleher discloses that in the conforming state, the seal portion is able to deform and conform to facial geometry of the human face (see col 2-col 3, when the air is not fully vented out, the seal portion 6 would be in the conforming state and would be able to deform and conform to facial geometry of the human face).
Regarding claim 29, Galleher discloses that in the fixed state, the seal portion retains a geometry that was established in the conforming state (see col 2, line 41 to col 3, line 60).
Regarding claim 30, Galleher discloses that the at least one internal structure is configured such that at least a portion of the granular material moves around and pass the at least one internal structure when the seal portion is deformed (see col 2, line 41 to col 3, line 60, Galleher discloses granular material positioned within the seal portion, can help the seal portion takes shape and deformed to a required shape, therefore, the granular material can move around and pass the at least one internal structure).
Regarding claim 39, Galleher discloses that the internal structure (14) has a length and defines a cross-sectional shape that extends along the length, wherein the length of the at least one internal structure extends along a longitudinal length of the seal portion (see the annotated-Galleher figs. 1-4 above, as shown, the screen 14 has a length and extends longitudinally within the seal portion along a longitudinal length of the seal portion, the longitudinal length being the length of the seal portion where the internal structure 14 extends from and to) and wherein the first surface and the second surface are separated from one another by a thickness of the cross-sectional shape (the screen 14 comprises a length/diameter, and is a three dimensional shape, therefore, can define a cross-sectional shape that extends along the length/diameter, wherein the length/diameter would extend along a longitudinal length of the seal portion and the first surface and the second surface is separated from one another by a thickness of the cross-sectional shape since the cross sectional shape can be defined as having a thickness in between the first surface and the second surface).
Regarding claim 40, Galleher discloses that the at least one internal structure is an internal skeleton (14 is a screen, and is within the chamber, therefore, screen 14 is an internal skeleton, see col 2, lines 41-67, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 42, Galleher discloses that the internal skeleton (14) extends longitudinally within the seal portion (see the annotated-Galleher figs. 1-4 above, as shown, the screen 14 has a length and extends longitudinally within the seal portion).
Regarding claim 43, Galleher discloses that the internal skeleton extends around an entire periphery of the perimeter portion of the frame portion within the granular chamber to form an annular loop around the entire periphery of the frame portion (portion 13’ where screen 14 extends around is interpreted as part of the frame portion that defines the perimeter of the frame portion, therefore, 14 extends around an entire periphery of the perimeter portion of the portion of 13’ of the frame portion and would form an annular loop with the annular wall that forms the first and second surfaces, see the annotated-Galleher figs. 1-4 above).
Regarding claim 45, Galleher discloses that the internal skeleton is able to constrict movement of the granular material within the seal portion (see col 2, lines 41-67, fig. 4, the screen 14 prevents granular materials from passing through, therefore, the screen is able to constrict movement of the granular material within the seal portion).
Regarding claim 47, Galleher discloses that the at least one internal structure is in a form of at least one structural layer, wherein the at least one structural layer extends between an inner wall of the seal portion and an outer wall of the seal portion (see col 2, lines 41-67, fig. 4, screen 14 is a structural layer, furthermore, as shown in the annotated-Galleher figs. 1-4 above, the screen 14 extends between an inner wall of the seal portion and an outer wall).
Regarding claim 49, Galleher discloses that the at least one internal structure is of a non-granular material (see the material of 14, figs. 1-4, col 2, lines 57-67, the screen is a non-granular material relative to “P”).
Regarding claim 51, Galleher discloses that the sealing surface extends along an entire length of the seal portion and is configured to encircle one or both nostrils and/or a mouth of the human face, wherein the at least one internal structure (14) forms an annular loop around the entire length of the seal portion (see the annotated-Galleher figs. 1-4 above, the sealing surface extends along an entire length of the seal portion and is configured to encircle either a nostril or mouth of the human face (col 2, line 69 to col 3, line 2), furthermore, 14 forms a loop around 13’ and is around (nearby) the entire length of the seal portion).
Regarding claim 52, Galleher discloses that the first surface faces toward the frame portion and the second surface faces away from the frame portion (the frame portion can be defined as a portion of 2 where the first surface faces and the second surface faces away, alternatively, see the alternative second surface, which faces away from the frame portion, see the annotated-Galleher figs. 1-4 above, col 2, lines 27-67).
Regarding claim 53, Galleher discloses that the controlled deformation comprises the inducement of a clam-shelling movement (see col 2, line 41 to col 3, line 60, the granular chamber can be air out and then be fixed in a contoured position to hold a particular shape, therefore, the conforming state is defined as when there is an abundant amount of air within the chamber and/or when the air is slowly leaving the valve device 9, and the fixed state is defined as once all the air exit the granular chamber enough to hold a desired fixed state due to the granular being held in a state after the exit of air, the controlled deformation caused by the granular material and the internal structure 14 would be an inducement of a clamp-shelling movement since the granular material and the remaining granular material or screen would clam together as the air is leaving the granular chamber).
Regarding claim 54, Galleher discloses that the controlled deformation comprises translation of the deformation in one location to movement or deformation in another location (see col 2, line 41 to col 3, line 60, the granular chamber can be air out and then be fixed in a contoured position to hold a particular shape, therefore, the conforming state is defined as when there is an abundant amount of air within the chamber and/or when the air is slowly leaving the valve device 9, and the fixed state is defined as once all the air exit the granular chamber enough to hold a desired fixed state, during the transition between the conforming state and the fixed state, depending on the force being applied to the seal portion by a patient’s face or hand, the controlled deformation would have translation of the deformation in one location to movement or deformation in another location since the granular material are free to move).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 31, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galleher (2,877,764) in view of Bloomheart (2,144,479).
Regarding claim 31, Galleher discloses that the internal structure (14), but fails to disclose that the internal structure is in a form of at least one strand.
However, Bloomheart teaches a screen made of at least one strand (page 2, col 1, lines 46-58, Bloomheart discloses a screen made of wire, a wire is a strand).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the internal structure of Galleher to be made of at least one strand as taught by Bloomheart for the purpose of providing a well-known structure of a screen that would provide the predictable result of allowing the granular material to not pass through.
Regarding claim 36, the modified Galleher discloses that the strand is suspended in a central position within the granular chamber the seal portion (the central position within the granular chamber of the seal portion is interpreted as where the screen 14 is positioned, as shown in fig. 4 of Galleher, the screen is suspended, therefore, after the modification with Bloomheart, the strand would be suspended, it is noted that the claim does not claim that the central location is of the seal portion, rather, it is a central position “within” the granular chamber of the seal portion).
Regarding claim 37, the modified Galleher discloses that the strand resist contacting a membrane of the seal portion (a membrane of the seal portion is interpreted as portion of the inner wall of the seal portion, see the annotated-Galleher figs. 1-4 above, therefore, the strand that is part of 14 of Galleher would resist contacting a membrane of the seal portion).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galleher (2,877,764) in view of Bloomheart (2,144,479) as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Porter (35,257).
Regarding claim 32, the modified Galleher discloses that the internal structure comprises a strand and the strand is held in a position such that deformation in one location translated to move in another region (see fig. 4 of Galleher, the screen having the strand is being positioned across 13’ and forms a physical screen barrier, therefore, would allow deformation of a group of granular material to be translated to move to another region), but fails to disclose that the strand is held in a taut position.
However, Porter teaches a screen being held in a taut position (see page 1, col 1, lines 13-37 and page 1, col 2, lines 27-45, Porter discloses a screen is stretched).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the internal structure of the modified Galleher to have the screen having the strand of Galleher be in a taut position as taught by Porter for the purpose of providing a way to securely position a screen relative to a chamber.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Galleher (2,877,764) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Galleher (2,877,764) in view of Jessup (746,089).
Regarding claim 34, Galleher discloses an internal structure that is a screen (14, figs. 1-4, col 2, lines 57-67), the screen is in a form of a chain link (a screen can be sectioned off to have a plurality of links that forms a chain, it is noted that the instant specification provides no details on how the term chain link should be interpreted, there are no drawings or description on what the chain link needs to be therefore, the term is given its broadest reasonable interpretation).
However, if there is any doubt that Galleher discloses an internal structure that is in the form of a chain link.
Jessup teaches a screen that is in a form of a chain link (see page 1, lines 36-75, fig. 3, as shown the screen is in the form of chain links).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the internal structure of the modified Galleher to be in the form of a chain link as taught by Jessup for the purpose of providing an alternative screen shape that would provide the predictable result of keeping the granular material within the granular chamber of Galleher.
It is noted that the modification with Jessup adopted the shape and construction of Jessup, however, the size of the openings of the screen of Galleher are being maintained.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galleher (2,877,764) in view of Jessup (746,089).
Regarding claim 35, Galleher discloses an internal structure that is a screen (14, figs. 1-4, col 2, lines 57-67), but fails to disclose that the internal structure are in the form of a spiral.
Jessup teaches a screen that is in a form of a spiral (see page 1, lines 36-102, fig. 3, as shown the screen is in the form of chain links having spiral wires).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the internal structure of the modified Galleher to be in the form of a spiral as taught by Jessup for the purpose of providing an alternative screen shape that would provide the predictable result of keeping the granular material within the granular chamber of Galleher.
It is noted that the modification with Jessup adopted the shape and construction of Jessup, however, the size of the openings of the screen of Galleher are being maintained.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galleher (2,877,764) in view of Davis (5,518,126).
Regarding claim 38, Galleher discloses that the internal structure (14), but fails to disclose that the internal structure is flexible and inelastic.
However, Davis teaches a screen that is flexible and inelastic (see net 25, col 2, lines 47-54, col 4, lines 3-19, as disclosed, the net 25 is flexible but inelastic).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the internal structure (screen 14 of Galleher) of Galleher to be flexible and inelastic as taught by Davis for the purpose of providing an alternative screen material that would work equally well in keeping the granular material within the granular chamber of Galleher.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galleher (2,877,764) in view of Bloomheart (2,144,479) as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Davis (5,518,126).
Regarding claim 46, the modified Galleher discloses that the internal structure (14 of Galleher modified by Bloomheart) comprises an internal tie (the strand/wire of Bloomheart forming the screen would be in internal tie), but fails to disclose that the internal structure is flexible and inelastic.
However, Davis teaches a screen that is flexible and inelastic (see net 25, col 2, lines 47-54, col 4, lines 3-19, as disclosed, the net 25 is flexible but inelastic).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the internal structure (screen 14 of Galleher) of the modified Galleher to be flexible and inelastic as taught by Davis for the purpose of providing an alternative screen material that would work equally well in keeping the granular material within the granular chamber of the modified Galleher.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant on page 7, lines 9-23 of the remarks argues that the features described in claims 31, 32, 33, 36 and 37 are shown in figs. 22a-22d and paragraph 00243 and the applicant submits that the strand features are shown in at least one or more of figures 22a-22d and cited the specification. However, the argument is not persuasive because the structures within figs. 22a-22d are not being referred to as a strand by the specification. Furthermore, from the figure, the structures shown in figs. 22a-22d do not appear to be strands and because the specification did not disclose the structures in figs. 22a-22d as strands, the drawings are being objected to for not showing the claimed limitation. Therefore, the drawing objection still stands.
The applicant on page 6, last paragraph and page 7, lines 1-13 of the remarks argues that the term “at least one internal structure” does not invoke 112(f) because the claim recited sufficient structure through the limitation “a first surface and a second surface”, however, surface(s) is/are not a structural modifier(s) because every generic placeholder for a structure would inherently have a surface or surfaces. Therefore, the claim interpretation still stands.
The applicant on page 8, lines 10-29 and page 9, lines 1-25 of the remarks argues that the office action fails to provide any explanation of how the granular material action on opposing sides of the screen 14 provides any effect on the deformation of the mask, much less provides controlled deformation. The applicant notes than the screen 14 covers the head 13’ of the sleeve 10. The head 13’ is located immediately adjacent the wall 2 of the mask and serves to retain the sleeve 10 in place. Thus, applicant submits that the head 13’ behaves effectively as portion of the mask wall and immaterial to the behavior of the granular material within the granular chamber of the mask. The Office action has failed to establish that the screen 14 covering the head 13’ would behave any differently than if the screen 14 was positioned within the opening 12 of the wall. With respect to the alternative interpretation that the internal structure could be a single granule, applicant respectfully submits that such an interpretation is unreasonably broad as being inconsistent with the specification and inconsistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. The specification describes the internal structure as something that is separate from and on which the granular material acts. Those skilled in the art would also recognize that the internal structure is separate from the granular material. Furthermore, similar to the screen 14, the Office Action fails to establish the granular material acting on a single granule would “provide controlled deformation to the mask”. However, the argument is not persuasive because both of the granular material that is being surrounded by the surrounding granular material and the screen 14 are physical structures that provide a counter force against granular material acting on the screen or the granular material being surrounded, therefore, due to the existent of the granular material being surrounded by the surrounding granular material and the screen 14, deformation of the cushion is being allowed when air is sucked out of the granular chamber, which would provide controlled deformation to the mask. Therefore, the rejection still stands. Furthermore, the applicant stated that a single granular material being surrounded by multiple granular materials cannot be treated as the internal structure because it is an unreasonably broad interpretation of the internal structure in light of the specification. However, both the specification and claim do not define the claimed limitation “at least one internal structure” in such a way to prevent such interpretation. The applicant merely stated that it is unreasonable in light of the specification without specifically showing any support as to why it is unreasonable, furthermore, nothing in the specification makes it clear that a granular material cannot be considered as an internal structure, therefore, there are no disclosures within the specification that state that the internal structure cannot be a granular material. Therefore, the rejection still stands.
The arguments to the newly added claim limitations in claims 25-26, 28-32, 34-43, 45-47, 49 and 51-54 has been addressed in the above rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 41 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GB 1439720 is cited to show a mask comprising a granular material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TU A VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM 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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571)272-5139. 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.
/TU A VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785