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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Italy on 2/25/2022, and an interim copy has been received. It is noted, however, that applicant has not yet filed a certified copy of the Italian application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: central seat 2f in paras [0021] and [0024].
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “2g” has been used to designate both “lower central seat” (para [0021]) and “lower central unit” (para [0024]).
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. 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Protective Mask with Identical Lateral Seats.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6 should read “an inhaling opening”
Claim 3, line 2 should be amended to read “by
Claim 5, line 5 should be amended to read “by
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 (and thus its dependent claims 2-9), it is unclear how “a[n] inhaling opening and an exhaling opening” can be “interchangeably housed” since openings are absences of material, i.e. how can one swap absences of material? This is confusion is compounded in claims 8-9, where it is unclear how absences of material can comprise “seats.” Moreover, the phrase “can be” in the last line of claim 1 renders it unclear whether the limitation thereafter is or is not actually required (even in the alternative), and it is also unclear what makes an opening an “inhaling” opening versus an “exhaling” opening, e.g. does an opening just have to be capable of the intended use, or is there some structure associated with the opening(s), such as one-way valve(s), that is required? The specification as originally filed discloses inhaling opening 4a and exhaling opening 4b as residing in detachable elements, see e.g. instant Fig. 1B, but the specification as originally filed contains no description to indicate what is considered to differentiate an “inhaling” opening from an “exhaling” opening. As best understood, for purposes of examination, claim 1 will be considered to read “a first element comprising an inhaling opening and a second element comprising an exhaling opening, the first element and second element first and second elements…the first and second elements” and “said first and second elements”, respectively.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the seats of said openings" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because seats of the openings are recited in claim 8 but claim 9 does not depend on claim 8, and changing the dependency from claim 7 to claim 8 would trigger an antecedent basis issue for “said threaded rings” in claim 9. For purposes of examination, claim 9 will be considered to read “
Claim Interpretation
A “seat” is understood to be a coupling area.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Fu et al. (CN 113694413 A; hereinafter “Fu,” wherein the citations below refer to the translation provided with this Office Action) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fu in view of Jewitt et al. (US 2021/0393997 A1; hereinafter “Jewitt”).
Regarding claim 1, Fu discloses a protective mask for civil or military use (Fig. 1, wherein the mask is fully capable of either intended use) comprising:
- a supporting frame (comprising mask 5 with goggles frame 3 and mask 8) (Figs. 1-2), comprising two identical lateral seats (right round slot 83 and left round slot 84; where the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2125, and openings 83/84 appear to be identical and symmetrically arranged in Fu Figs. 1-2 and 5-8), positioned in a lower portion of the supporting frame and mirroring each other relative to a sagittal plane of the supporting frame (Fig. 1, and see discussion above), and a front seat (front surface of goggles frame 3) located in an upper portion of the supporting frame (Fig. 1);
- a protective lens (goggles/lens 1) anchored to said supporting frame to cover said front seat (Fig. 1; lens (1) is set on the outermost layer of the google mask device, second-to-last para on page 4; where the lens must be anchored in order to be held on the mask as depicted in Fig. 1); and
- as best understood, a first element comprising a[n] inhaling opening (dust filter 82 comprising air inlet valve 814) (Figs. 1 and 7) and a second element comprising an exhaling opening (outlet valve 81 comprising discharge valve 824) which are housed in said lateral seats (Fig. 1).
In the event that Fu is not held to explicitly disclose identical/mirrored lateral seats, Jewitt teaches that it was well known in the respiratory mask art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for masks to include identical/mirrored lateral seats (e.g. Figs. 1 and 7-8, portions 112 and 108 (when exhalation is configured laterally), paras [0054], [0072-73], [0086-88]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Fu to include identical/mirrored lateral seats as taught by Jewitt, in order to provide the predictable result of utilizing the same connection arrangement in both lateral openings to allow for easy sourcing of components (e.g. use of the same cover components 815/812 and 825/822) and/or to allow easy exchange between components (including different mask components with the same connection arrangement) and/or to allow the side on which inhalation versus exhalation occurs to be easily swapped, while also providing for a weight-balanced arrangement of components.
Regarding claim 5, Fu discloses or Fu in view of Jewitt teaches the protective mask according to claim 1, wherein Fu further discloses or reasonably suggests wherein said protective lens has a profile obtained by means of a single curvature (Figs. 1-2, where lens 1 is depicted as having a profile that is curved from left to right, and it is either inferred or would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the left-to-right curvature to be the only profile curvature in order to utilize a standard blank of flexible material to form the lens with a single, straight-forward motion, i.e. bending at the midline, for cost-saving simplicity in manufacture).
Regarding claim 6, Fu discloses or Fu in view of Jewitt teaches the protective mask according to claim 1, wherein Fu further discloses wherein said supporting frame is shaped in such a way that said protective lens, when anchored to cover the front seat, has a predetermined distance from the eyes of a user (Fig. 1; wherein the lens is fixed to the front of the mask and there is some predetermined distance between front and rear of the mask, such that the instant claim limitation is met for any given user).
Regarding claim 8, Fu discloses or Fu in view of Jewitt teaches the protective mask according to claim 1, wherein Fu further discloses, as best understood, wherein said [first and second elements] comprise seats for coupling the openings to the lateral seats of the supporting frame (see Figs. 1-2 and 5, wherein the seats are the circumferential portions of 81/82 that engage slots 83/84).
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu OR, in the alterative, Fu in view of Jewitt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grove et al. (US 6,176,239 B1; hereinafter “Grove”).
Regarding claim 2, Fu discloses or Fu in view of Jewitt teaches the protective mask according to claim 1, but Fu or modified Fu is silent regarding wherein said protective lens is made of polycarbonate or flexible material. However, it has been held to be within the general skill of one in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, see MPEP 2144.07, and Grove teaches that it was known in the protective mask art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a protective lens (single-piece eye lens 46) (Fig. 1) to be made of polycarbonate or flexible material (single-piece eye lens 46, which is semi-flexible…made of a polycarbonate, col. 5, lines 17-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Fu or modified Fu to include wherein said protective lens is made of polycarbonate or flexible material as taught by Grove, in order to predictably provide a suitably robust and/or manipulatable lens for operation and/or installation into the mask (see e.g. claim 5 discussion above).
Regarding claim 3, Fu discloses or Fu in view of Jewitt teaches the protective mask according to claim 1, but Fu or modified Fu is silent regarding wherein said protective lens is anchored to the supporting frame by means of liquid adhesive. However, it has been held to be within the general skill of one in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, see MPEP 2144.07, and Grove teaches that it was known in the protective mask art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a protective lens (single-piece eye lens 46) (Fig. 1) to be anchored to the supporting frame by means of liquid adhesive (single-piece eye lens 46…bonded directly into the facepiece 12 using a silicone adhesive, col. 5, lines 17-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the protective lens of Fu or modified Fu to be anchored to the supporting frame by means of liquid adhesive as taught by Grove, in order to utilize a standard material to secure the lens to the mask in a predictably sealed manner so as to keep out external gases and/or debris.
Regarding claim 4, Fu discloses or Fu in view of Jewitt teaches the protective mask according to claim 1, but Fu or modified Fu is silent regarding wherein an optical correction is applied to said protective lens. However, it has been held to be within the general skill of one in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, see MPEP 2144.07, and Grove teaches that it was known in the protective mask art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an optical correction to be applied to said protective lens (lens 46 is designed with a polynomial curvature for optimum eye relief…while having ample space for an optical correction spectacle, col. 5, lines 23-26, wherein the polynomial curvature and/or the application of a spectacle comprehends an optical correction as claimed). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Fu or modified Fu to include an optical correction to be applied to said protective lens as taught by Grove, in order to provide the predictable result of eye relief and/or vision correction as necessary for a given user (Grove col. 5, lines 23-26).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu OR, in the alternative, Fu in view of Jewitt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jewitt.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Fu discloses or Fu in view of Jewitt teaches the protective mask according to claim 1, but Fu or modified Fu is silent regarding wherein said lateral seats comprise respective threaded rings identical to each other and integral with the supporting frame, wherein said threaded rings are configured to be coupled to seats of said openings. However, Jewitt teaches that it was well known in the protective mask art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for lateral seats (portions 112 and 108 (when exhalation is configured laterally)) (Figs. 1 and 7-8, paras [0054], [0072-73], [0086-88]) to comprise respective threaded rings identical to each other and integral with the supporting frame, wherein said threaded rings are configured to be coupled to seats of said openings (filter unit 10 is removably attachable to…at least a portion of the air exhalation portion 108 and/or the air inhalation portion 112…connectors 118 that are configured for interacting with corresponding one or more grooves 11 on the at least one filter unit 10…removably attachable…using any other connection mechanism…threaded engagement, para [0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Fu or modified Fu to include wherein said lateral seats comprise respective threaded rings identical to each other and integral with the supporting frame, wherein said threaded rings are configured to be coupled to seats of said openings as taught by Jewitt, in order to utilize a standard connection means (threaded connectors) to ensure a secure mechanical connection between components 81/82 of Fu and their openings 83/84.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references teaching interchangeable lateral connections for masks: Gustavsson et al. (SE 454483 B); Shoemaker et al. (US 4,595,003; col. 3, lines 35-41); Dente (US 2022/0161066 A1); Kohrman et al. (US 2022/0023674 A1); Angioletti (US 3,181,531); Fu (US 2024/0024707 A1). Additional references regarding adhesive connection of a lens to a mask: Bergeron et al. (US 2016/0074683 A1); Lai (US 2004/0211426 A1); Morgan et al. (US 2016/0001111 A1); Monro et al. (US 2,201,198). Additional reference regarding corrective lensing in masks: Little et al. (US H000883 H)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHRYN E DITMER whose telephone number is (571)270-5178. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-4:30p, F 7:30a-11:30a ET.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/KATHRYN E DITMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785