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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the filing on 10/13/2025. Since the previous filing, claims 13 and 16-18 have been amended and no claims have been added or cancelled. Thus, claims 13-19 and 25-34 are pending in the application.
In regards to the previous Priority arguments, Applicant has persuasively argued with respect to claim 13 and this is therefore withdrawn with the arguments pertaining to claim 18 maintained below with new arguments added.
In regards to the pervious Drawing Objections, Applicant has persuasively argued these objections and they are therefore withdrawn.
In regards to the previous Specification Objections, Applicant has amended to overcome these objections and they are therefore withdrawn.
In regards to the previous Claim Interpretation under 112(f), this interpretation is maintained below.
In regards to the previous 112(a) Rejection, Applicant has persuasively argued to overcome this rejection and it is therefore withdrawn.
In regards to the previous 112(b) Rejection, Applicant has failed to address this rejection and it is maintained below.
In regards to the previous 102 and 103 Rejections, Applicant’s amendments and arguments have partially overcome these rejections and they are withdrawn or maintained, modified for the amendments, below.
Priority
While claiming benefit to the provisional applications 62/205,275 and 62,261,715, these provisional applications do not provide support for all of the subject matter recited in at least claims 15-18. Specifically, no mention of the “friction component comprises a plurality of flexible fins” (claim 15 line -12) or “wherein the friction component comprises at least one roller carried by one of the first and second strap portions and that directly engages the other of the first and second strap portions” (claim 16 line 1-3) or “wherein the friction component comprises a single spring loaded arm carried by one of the first and second strap portions and located on a single side of the other of the first and second strap portions, the single spring loaded arm having a friction surface that contacts the single side of the other of the first and second strap portions” (claim 17 line 1-5) or “wherein the outer strap portion is deformable about the inner strap portion, one of the outer and inner strap portions comprises a lock tooth, and the other of the outer and inner strap portions comprises a lock recess, wherein in a locked position the lock tooth engages the lock recess” (claim 18, ln. 6-9). Claim 18 appears to be claiming the embodiments depicted in Figs. 24A-28D. These embodiments are not supporting in provisional applications 62/205,275 and 62,261,715. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of the provisional applications. The effective filing date for these claims will be treated as 08/12/2016.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-17 and 19 and 25-34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 14-17 and 19 and 25-34 line 1: “Claim” should be “claim”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation- 35 USC § 112 – Sixth Paragraph/35 USC § 112(f)
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 a claim limitation that does not use the word “means,” but is nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation 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 is:
“friction component…configured to resist telescoping movement between the first and second strap portions” in claim 13 (ln. 6-8)
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. While the application does not use the term “friction component” and thus the “corresponding structure” is not entirely clear, it appears the friction enhancing features found in Figs. 24A-27D correspond to the claimed “friction component” (i.e. the “o-ring,” “flexible fins,” “at least one roller,” and “spring loaded arm”).
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 term “friction component” in claims 14-17 (ln. 1 in all claims) is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because each of claims 14-17 recite sufficient structure to perform the function of resisting telescoping movement between the first and second strap portions.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 34, the limitation “the adjustment mechanism is hidden” (ln. 1-2) is unclear how the “first and second strap portions” can be “hidden.” Claim 13 recites the first and second strap portions as part of the “adjustment mechanism” (claim 13, ln. 5). For the purposes of examination, claim 34 will be interpreted as requiring the “friction component” to be hidden (as opposed to the entire “adjustment mechanism”).
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.
Claims 13, 15, and 27-28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barlow et al (2013/0220327).
Regarding claim 13, Barlow discloses a mask assembly (Fig. 7 depicts a mask assembly; see annotated Fig. 7 below for convenience) comprising: a mask configured to contact a user's face and deliver gases to the user in use (Fig. 7, mask 310); and a headgear configured to secure the mask to the user's face in use (Fig. 7, headgear 314 secures mask 310 to the user’s face), the headgear comprising a top strap and an adjustment mechanism configured to allow for adjustment of a length of the top strap (Fig. 7, depicts a top strap with adjustment connector 321; see [0118], [0143], and [0146], which describe multiple examples of mechanisms that can serve as adjustment connector 321), the adjustment mechanism comprising first and second strap portions and a friction component, the first and second strap portions interlocked with one another along an entirety of an overlapping portion of the first and second strap portions (Fig. 20-2.4 and 20-2.5, 1st strap portion 381 and 2nd strap portion 380, two strap portions are maintained in relation to one another while overlapped), the first and second strap portions configured to telescope relative to each other and the friction component configured to resist telescoping movement between the first and second strap portions ([0147] discloses that two straps are threaded together (i.e. telescoped together) to form an adjustable strap assembly. Locking bumps 380.1 serves as friction components that enhance friction to ensure the headgear remains in its set position; see [0155]).
PNG
media_image1.png
541
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
297
587
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Barlow discloses the friction component comprises a plurality of flexible fins (Fig. 20-2.4, locking bumps 380.1 are considered “fins.” [0155] discloses that these bumps are made of resilient and elastically deformable material).
Regarding claim 27, Barlow discloses one of the first and second strap portions comprises a hollow outer rail and another of the first and second strap portions comprises an inner rail (Fig. 20-2.4, the free end of the first strap portion 381 is considered an “inner rail” while the cuff 382 of the second strap portion 280 is considered a “hollow outer rail” that receives the strap 381).
Regarding claim 28, Barlow discloses a portion of the inner rail is disposed within the hollow outer rail (Fig. 20-2.4, first strap portion 381 is partially disposed within the cuff 382).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 13, 18, 19, 25, 27, 29-30, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walls.
Regarding claim 13, Walls discloses a mask assembly (Fig. 1, interface and headgear assembly 100) comprising: a mask configured to contact a user's face and deliver gases to the user in use (Fig. 1, mask interface 102); and a headgear configured to secure the mask to the user's face in use (Fig. 1, headgear assembly 104), the headgear comprising a top strap and an adjustment mechanism configured to allow for adjustment of a length of the top strap (Fig. 1, crown strap assembly 130 has an adjustment mechanism 136)
While the embodiment of Fig 1 of Walls does not disclose wherein the adjustment mechanism comprising first and second strap portions and a friction component, the first and second trap portions interlocked with one another along an entirety of an overlapping portion of the first and second strap portions, the first and second strap portions configured to telescope relative to each other and the friction component configured to resist telescoping movement between the first and second strap portions, the embodiment of Fig 19 of Walls shows a strap length adjustment mechanism wherein the adjustment mechanism comprising first and second strap portions and a friction component, the first and second strap portions interlocked with one another along an entire of an overlapping portion of the first and second strap portions (Fig. 19, inner sleeve 204 is a “first strap portion” and outer sleeve 202 is a “second strap portion;” see annotated Fig. 19 below of convenience. [0088] discloses that the outer sleeve 202 may have an inner passage that includes one or more ridges that are considered a “friction component”), the first and second strap portions configured to telescope relative to each other and the friction component configured to resist telescoping movement between the first and second strap portions ([0088] discloses outer sleeve 202 and inner sleeve 204 as part of a “telescoping mechanism 200.” [0088] additionally discloses that the ridges and recess of the mechanism help to resist movement between outer sleeve 202 and inner sleeve 204).
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 embodiment of Fig 1 of Walls wherein the adjustment mechanism comprising first and second strap portions and a friction component, the first and second trap portions interlocked with one another along an entirety of an overlapping portion of the first and second strap portions, the first and second strap portions configured to telescope relative to each other and the friction component configured to resist telescoping movement between the first and second strap portions as taught by the embodiment of Fig 19 of Walls as this is a known mechanism for length adjustment of head worn straps.
PNG
media_image3.png
453
524
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Walls discloses a mask assembly (Fig. 1, interface and headgear assembly 100) comprising: a mask configured to contact a user's face and deliver gases to the user in use (Fig. 1, mask interface 102); and a headgear configured to secure the mask to the user's face in use (Fig. 1, headgear assembly 104), the headgear comprising a top strap and an adjustment mechanism configured to allow for adjustment of a length of the top strap (Fig. 1, crown strap assembly 130 has an adjustment mechanism 136)
While the embodiment of Fig 1 of Walls does not disclose wherein the adjustment mechanism comprising outer and inner strap portions configured to telescope relative to each other, wherein the outer strap portion is deformable about the inner strap portion, one of the outer and inner strap portions comprising a lock tooth, and the other of the outer and inner strap portions comprises a lock recess, wherein in a locked position the lock tooth engages the lock recess, the embodiment of Fig 19 of Walls shows a strap length adjustment mechanism wherein the adjustment mechanism comprising outer and inner strap portions configured to telescope relative to each other (Fig. 19, outer sleeve 202 and inner sleeve 204 form telescoping mechanism 200), wherein the outer strap portion is deformable about the inner strap portion ([0088] discloses “squeezing the outer sleeve member 202,” implying the sleeve member 202 is deformable), one of the outer and inner strap portions comprising a lock tooth ([0088] discloses one or more ridges on the inner passage of outer sleeve member 202), and the other of the outer and inner strap portions comprises a lock recess, wherein in a locked position the lock tooth engages the lock recess ([0088] discloses the inner arm 204 having recesses that engage with the ridges of the outer sleeve 202).
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 embodiment of Fig 1 of Walls wherein the adjustment mechanism comprising outer and inner strap portions configured to telescope relative to each other, wherein the outer strap portion is deformable about the inner strap portion, one of the outer and inner strap portions comprising a lock tooth, and the other of the outer and inner strap portions comprises a lock recess, wherein in a locked position the lock tooth engages the lock recess as taught by the embodiment of Fig 19 of Walls as this is a known mechanism for length adjustment of head worn straps.
Regarding claim 19, Walls teaches the outer strap portion configured to be squeezed by the user to disengage the lock tooth from the lock recess and allow for adjustment of a length of the top strap ([0088] discloses that squeezing of the outer sleeve 202 allows the inner arm 204 to translate relative to the outer sleeve 202).
Regarding claim 25, Walls teaches one of the first and second strap portions comprises an inner tube and another comprises a hollow outer tube (Fig. 19, inner sleeve 204 is an “inner tube” and outer sleeve 202 is a “hollow outer tube”)
Regarding claim 27, Walls teaches one of the first and second strap portions comprises a hollow outer rail and another of the first and second strap portions comprises an inner rail (Fig. 19, outer sleeve 202 is a “hollow outer rail” and inner sleeve 204 is an “inner rail”).
Regarding claim 29, Walls teaches a ring is coupled to an end of the hollow outer rail and disposed about the inner rail (Annotated Fig. 19 above highlights a ring at the end of outer sleeve 202).
Regarding claim 30, Walls teaches the ring is integrally formed with the end of the hollow outer rail (Annotated Fig. 19 depicts the ring as integrally formed with the outer sleeve 202).
Regarding claim 32, Walls teaches the ring is permanently coupled to the end of the hollow outer rail (Annotated Fig. 19 depicts the ring as permanently coupled with the end of outer sleeve 202).
Regarding claim 33, Walls teaches the lock tooth is integrally formed with one of the outer and inner strap portions ([0088] discloses that the inner passage of outer sleeve member 202 can include one or more ridges, wherein these ridges are considered “integrally formed” with the outer sleeve member 202).
Regarding claim 34, Walls teaches the adjustment mechanism is hidden (Fig. 19, the ridges and recesses of outer sleeve 202 and inner sleeve 204 are not visible).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 16, 17, 26 and 31 are 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.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record does not disclose the friction component “comprising at least one o-ring” (ln. 2).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record does not disclose wherein the friction component “comprises at least one roller carried by one of the first and second strap portions and that directly engages the other of the first and second strap portions” (ln. 1-3).
Regarding claim17, the prior art of record does not disclose wherein the friction component “comprises a single spring loaded arm carried by one of the first and second strap portions and located on a single side of the other of the first and second strap portions, the single spring loaded arm having a friction surface that contacts the single side of the other of the first and second strap portions” (ln. 1-5).
Regarding claim 26, the prior art of record does not disclose “wherein the inner tube includes a groove that extends around a circumference of an outer surface of the inner tube that at least one o-ring is disposed within” (ln. 1-3).
Regarding claim 31, the prior art of record does not disclose “the ring is removably coupled to the end of the hollow outer rail” (ln. 1-2).
Response to Arguments
In regards to the arguments concerning the independent claims, these arguments are in regards to the amendments made to the claims and are addressed in the new or modified rejections entered above.
In regards to the arguments concerning the dependent claims, these arguments are in regards to their dependency on above argued independent claims and are addressed in the rejections entered above.
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 Arielle Wolff whose telephone number is (571)272-8727. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/ARIELLE WOLFF/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights