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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 4/14/2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 4-6, 8 and 9 have been amended, and claims 2, 3 and 10 have been cancelled. As such, claims 1 and 4-9 are pending in the instant application.
It is noted that Applicant has still not provided a certified copy of the foreign priority document.
Applicant has amended Fig. 1A to include a label 2f and amended para [0024] to have the same designation for reference character 2g as para [0021]; the objections to the drawings are withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the title to be more descriptive; the previous objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims to address minor informalities; the objections to the claims are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment of claim 9 addresses the previous rejection thereof under 35 USC 112(b)/second paragraph, but Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 introduces different issues under 35 USC 112(b)/second paragraph; the rejections under 35 USC 112(b)/second paragraph are updated below, where any previous rejection not maintained/updated below has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 (hereinafter “Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of Remarks, Applicant argues that “the terms inhaling opening and exhaling opening are a translation error…the Italian Priority Parent Application was incorporated by reference…the new terms would be inherently understood from the other disclosure.”
The Examiner respectfully notes that the parent application uses the term “bocchettone” in conjunction with labels 4a,b, which does not translate to “device,” such that it is unclear how including the new term “device” corrects a translation error. Moreover, as was noted in the previous 112(b)/second paragraph, the specification as originally filed contains no depiction or description of the internal structure(s) of elements 4a,b, such that it is unclear/not “inherently understood” whether e.g. one-way valves and/or blowers provide the claimed functionality of “inhaling/exhaling,” or whether all that is required to anticipate the claimed functionality is disclosure of flow (into and/or out of a mask) through “device” openings. As best understood, art has been applied that teaches separate/one-way-valve-containing inhale/exhale devices, but 112(b)/second paragraph issues remain as discussed below.
Applicant describes the prior art on pages 7-10 of Remarks.
The Examiner notes that the embodiment of Jewitt presented by Applicant on page of Remarks is not the embodiment most relevant to the rejection; the embodiments of Jewitt most relevant to the claimed invention are Jewitt Figs. 6-8, which show inhalation coming in from one side port of the mask and exhalation leaving out from the opposite side port of the mask.
Applicant argues on page 10 of Remarks that “Fu discloses that the lens are [sic] “anchored” by a mask strap and not by using a liquid adhesive.”
The Examiner disagrees with this misrepresentation of Fu and of the rejection. The anchoring of lens 1 to goggles frame 3 in Fu is not “by a mask strap” as asserted by Applicant. The mask belt 7 of Fu attaches to frame 3 at buckles 35, 36 and anchors the mask in place on a user’s face, but it does not participate in the attachment of lens 1 to frame 3 (buckles 35, 36, seen in Fu Figs. 2 and 4, are located at the middle of either side of the frame 3 and are not shown or described associated with lens 1, which is positioned on the front of frame 3). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The lens 1 of Fu has to be attached to the front of frame 3 somehow in order to arrive at the assembly shown in Fu Fig. 1 versus Fu Fig. 2. Therefore, Grove was applied in the rejection (maintained below) as a teaching of a well-known means, i.e. liquid adhesive, by which to attach a mask lens to a mask frame. Therefore, it is the combination of Fu and Grove that teaches the contest limitation, as maintained in the updated art rejections below.
Applicant argues on page 10 of Remarks that “Fu does not disclose a lens “integral” with the frame but placed above it…unlike the proposed solution.”
First, the Examiner is unclear why Applicant describes lens 1 of Fu as “placed above” frame 3. Lens 1 of Fu is clearly positioned on the front of frame 3, not above it. Second, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the lens is “integral” with the frame or “not above it”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The instant claims require the lens to be a separate component that is attached/anchored to the frame such that it covers “a front seat located in an upper portion” of the frame; Fu meets this language, because the lens 1 of Fu is a separate component that is attached/anchored to the frame of Fu (comprising elements 5+3+8) such that it covers “a front seat located in an upper portion” of the frame, i.e. the front surface of frame 3, which is located in the upper portion of frame 5+3+8.
Applicant argues on page 10 of Remarks that “Fu also does not mention the lens material.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The lens of Fu has to be made of some transparent material, 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 well-known in the respiratory mask art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the claimed material to form a respiratory face mask lens. Therefore, the combination predictably arrives at the contested limitation as discussed in the maintained/updated art rejections below.
Applicant argues on page 10 of Remarks that the “the lens and the mask device [of Fu] are two different elements.”
In response to applicant's inferred argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (e.g. that the claimed frame is a unitary component to which the lens and inhaling/exhaling devices are attached) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Indeed, the Examiner notes that the disclosed frame itself is not unitary/is two different elements, as it includes e.g. an inner and outer frame as discussed in para [0024] of the instant specification, i.e. the disclosed outer frame/lens are a different element than the disclosed inner frame/mask device.
Applicant argues on page 11 of Remarks that the valve 81 and filter 82 of Fu are “in no way interchangeable since they are anchored to the mask by strip 88 that requires removing the whole mask to change the devices.”
The Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s mischaracterization of Fu. The strip 88 shown in Fu Figs. 5-6 is described in the middle of page 4 of the previously-supplied translation as attaching the loudspeaker belt 87 to the mask 8 (“the mask (8); the loudspeaker belt (87) and the connecting adhesive strip (88) are firmly adhered by adhesive”); it is not shown or described as associated with slots 83,84 or filter covers 812,815. Fu is silent regarding exactly how the filters are secured within the slots 83,84. As such, there is nothing in Fu that inherently prevents interchanging of the devices 81,82, and ensuring/providing for such interchangeability would have been obvious in view of Jewitt for the reasons discussed in the maintained/updated rejection below, particularly since switching the sides for securing a filter canister and/or providing interchangeable inhaling/exhaling devices was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and thus easily implemented by an artisan, as demonstrated by previously-cited Gustavsson, Shoemaker, Dente and Kohrman.
Applicant argues on page 11 of Remarks that Jewitt discloses two inhaling devices in the lateral seats and one central exhaling device and asserts the three devices “are not actually interchangeable…feature is essential…the devices have a different form factor.”
As noted above, Applicant appears to be focused on an embodiment of Jewitt that is not relevant to the teachings relied on in the rejection. Applicant’s remarks regarding Jewitt are misplaced; the teachings of Jewitt that are applicable to the claimed invention do not come from the two inhaling devices on lateral seats and central exhaling device shown in Jewitt Fig. 1; rather, the rejection relies on the embodiments in Jewitt Figs. 6-8, where exhaling occurs from one or both lateral seats. Therefore, two identical inhaling devices are not essential to Jewitt, and Jewitt Fig. 8 explicitly discloses different devices in the lateral seats (one for inhaling, one for exhaling). Therefore, Applicant arguments against Jewitt are unconvincing, and the art rejections are maintained/updated below.
Applicant argues on page 11 of Remarks that “Jewitt has no lens…it is a totally different type of mask not combinable in order to obtain the presently claimed invention, especially considering that Fu has no reference to an “integral” mask.”
The Examiner fails to see how the presence of a lens has any impact on the teachings of Jewitt regarding identical lateral seats for interchangeably receiving inhaling/exhaling devices. The lack of a lens in Jewitt is irrelevant to the proposed combination, as the base reference of Fu already discloses a lens and the lateral seats are separate components from the lens. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “an integral mask”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on page 11 that Grove “makes no mention of the interchangeability of the filters thanks to the lateral seats…the devices are “permanently coupled” to the mask…these documents can’t be combined with each other…claim 1 is believe to be allowable.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Jewitt educates Fu to ensure/provide interchangeability of the inhaling/exhaling devices thereof, as discussed in the maintained/updated rejections below; Grove was not relied on nor needed to teach the contested limitations, and the filtering arrangement of Grove is independent from/not germane to the teachings of Grove regarding lens/adhesive materials. The references are all respiratory face masks with similar components that would have been easily combinable by an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to achieve the predictable results discussed in the maintained/updated rejections below, and Applicant has provided no objective evidence to the contrary. As such, the claims are not allowable.
Specification
The amendment filed 4/14/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the specification as originally filed does not support the substitution of the term “opening” (“bocchettone” in the foreign priority document) for the term “device” [particularly since the use of the term “device” in this way triggers a 112(f) analysis, which in turn triggers new 112(b) issues as discussed below].
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 “device”) that is coupled with functional language (“inhaling” and “exhaling”) 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: “inhaling device” and “exhaling device” in claims 1 and 8-9.
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. The terms “inhaling device” and “exhaling device” are not found in the specification as originally filed, and it is unclear what structure(s) of the elements comprising labels 4a-b in e.g. instant Fig. 1B provide(s) the active functionalities as claimed, see 112(b) section below.
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. The Examiner notes that suggestions regarding these limitations were included on pages 4-5 of the Office Action mailed 1/15/2026 that would avoid a 112f interpretation, as would the interpretation discussed in the 112(b) section below.
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 and 4-9 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 claims 1 (and thus its dependent claims), 8 and 9, the claim limitations “inhaling device” and “exhaling device” invoke 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. The specification as originally filed recited an inhaling and exhaling “opening,” but it was unclear what made an opening an “inhaling” opening versus an “exhaling” opening, e.g. did an opening just have to be capable of the intended use, or was there some (undisclosed) structure associated with the opening(s), such as one-way valve(s) or directional blower(s), that provided the functionality? And with the newly-added language, does an “inhaling/exhaling device” involve/require e.g. active blowing of gas into/out of a mask to provide the claimed functionality? 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 of any internal structure(s) of those detachable elements that might indicate what is considered to differentiate an “inhaling” opening from an “exhaling” opening or how the “devices” operate to provide the claimed inhaling and exhaling. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are 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.
As best understood, for purposes of examination and similar to the previous interpretation, claim 1 will be interpreted as if the last two lines recited “a first device comprising an opening for inhaling and a second device comprising an opening for exhaling, the first and second devices interchangeable housed in said lateral seats.”
Claim Interpretation
A “seat” is understood to be a coupling area.
A “device” is understood to be a structural element.
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 (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 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 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (CN 113694413 A; hereinafter “Fu,” wherein the citations below refer to the translation provided with the Office Action mailed 1/15/2026) in view of Jewitt et al. (US 2021/0393997 A1; hereinafter “Jewitt”) and Grove et al. (US 6,176,239 B1; hereinafter “Grove”).
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, an inhaling device (dust filter 82 comprising air inlet valve 814) (Figs. 1 and 7) and an exhaling device (outlet valve 81 comprising discharge valve 824) housed in said lateral seats (Fig. 1).
In the event that Fu is not held to explicitly disclose identical/mirrored lateral seats, and since Fu is silent regarding wherein the devices are interchangeably housed in the lateral seats, Jewitt is provided to teach 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 (inhalation portion 112 and exhalation portion 108, when the exhalation portion is configured laterally as shown in Figs. 6-8) with inhalation/exhalation devices (comprising filters 300 in Fig. 6 OR inhalation filter 400a and exhalation filter 400b in Fig. 8) interchangeably housed in the lateral seats (e.g. Figs. 1 and 7-8; paras [0054], [0072-73], [0080-88]; where the same connection mechanisms (e.g. bayonet connectors 118) are inferred to be on both sides of the mask for connecting the filters, which are inferred to have the same corresponding connection means, since Jewitt depicts the filters as all having the same housings). 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 with the inhalation/exhalation devices interchangeably housed in the lateral seats as taught by Jewitt, in order to provide the predictable result of utilizing the same connection arrangement in both lateral openings of Fu 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), as well as to allow the side on which inhalation versus exhalation occurs to be easily swapped as desired, while also providing for a weight-balanced arrangement of components due to the mirroring.
While the lens 1 of Fu must be made of some clear material and secured to the front of frame 3 via some mechanism in order to for it be held on the front of the mask as depicted in Fig. 1 as compared to Fig. 2, modified Fu is silent regarding said protective lens being made of polycarbonate or flexible material and being 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 made of polycarbonate or flexible material (single-piece eye lens 46, which is semi-flexible…made of a polycarbonate, col. 5, lines 17-20) and 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 modified Fu to include wherein said protective lens is made of polycarbonate or flexible material and anchored to the supporting frame by means of liquid adhesive 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 below) and to utilize a well-known material to predictably secure the lens to the front of the mask frame 3 in a sealed manner so as to keep out external gases and/or debris.
Regarding claim 4, Fu in view of Jewitt and Grove teaches the protective mask according to claim 1, but modified Fu is silent regarding an optical correction 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 further 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 modified Fu to include an optical correction to be applied to said protective lens as further 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).
Regarding claim 5, Fu in view of Jewitt and Grove teaches the protective mask according to claim 1, wherein Fu further discloses or reasonably suggests wherein said protective lens has a profile obtained by a single curvature (Fu 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 in view of Jewitt and Grove 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 claims 7 and 9, Fu in view of Jewitt and Grove teaches the protective mask according to claim 1, but 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 inhaling and exhaling devices. 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 (inhalation portion 112 and exhalation portion 108, when the exhalation portion is configured laterally as shown in Figs. 6-8) (Figs. 1 and 6-8, 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 inhaling and exhaling devices (comprising filters 300 in Fig. 6 OR inhalation filter 400a and exhalation filter 400b in Fig. 8) (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 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 inhaling and exhaling devices (see Fu Figs. 1-2 and 5, wherein the seats are the circumferential portions of 81/82 that engage slots 83/84) 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.
Regarding claim 8, Fu in view of Jewitt and Grove teaches the protective mask according to claim 1, wherein modified Fu further discloses/teaches wherein said inhaling and exhaling devices comprise seats for coupling to the lateral seats of the supporting frame (see Fu Figs. 1-2 and 5, wherein the seats are the circumferential portions of 81/82 that engage slots 83/84).
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 KATHRYN E DITMER whose telephone number is (571)270-5178. The examiner can normally be reached M 7:30a-3:30p, T/Th 8:30a-2:30p, W 11:30a-4:30p, F 1-4p 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
Prosecution Insights