Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. 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 “channel” referenced in Claim 15, and the “coiled tube structure” in Claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Figures 2,3A, 3B, 3C, 5A and 5B use incorrect sectional views. --The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight.-- See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
Additionally, Fig, 2and 5A are have incorrect labeling of Mouth frame(111b) which points to the Purge Valve(11). While in Fig 5A, lens frame(111a) points directly to Purge Valve (117).
Finally, --lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake. See 37CFR1.84(q). Thus, the underlined references, i.e., "1" in figures 1A and 1B, "2" in fig. 2, "13a" and "204" in figure 3A, ... etc. are improper. It is suggested to use lead line and arrow associate with reference number to represent the intended details. --
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Specification
3. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes a figure number “1B” on the abstract page. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The number 115 is being used to number both the Waterproof skirt(115) and the partition(115) in paragraph 22, line. 1 and 2, the Partition label should be changed to 115a in specification to match labeling in drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 1 is objected to because it appears that the phrase “a first end to be contained in the mouth of a user” positively claims a human body part. It is suggested to include functional language such as --first end adapted to be contained-- or --first end configured to be contained--. To avoid positively claiming a human body part.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “guiding holes arranged in a mesh shape, a honeycomb shape, a grille shape or any combination thereof”. It is unclear which of these listed options are distinguishable over each other. Therefore, this claim has an indefinite scope.
Claim 15 is rejected due to the structure being claimed between the mouthpiece and purge valve recited as the “channel” being unclear. Therefore, this claim has an indefinite scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
9. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 4 is interpreted as reading on a human organism due to the wording, “the lens frame and mouth frame cover an eyes and the mouth of the user”(lin. 4). All locational wording when dealing with human components should include functional language for separation from a human organism. I.e. --adapted to, configured to, configured for…--
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 1-2, 11-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caprice et al. (2016/0297505) in view of Morgan et al. (WO 02/055379 A3)
Regarding claim 1, Caprice et al. discloses a breathable mask (see Fig. 1-14, abstract for example) which includes a body and a breathing tube (20), the body which is connected to the breathing tube so that an interior of the body is in fluid communication with an outside through the breathing tube (see Fig. 1, showing the breathing tube 20, the rest of the device defining the body, and lin. 3 para. 45 for facilitates breathing); a body including a main frame(12), a lens connected to the main frame(18), and a waterproof skirt(40) (see Fig. 2, showing main frame 12 and faceplate 18, the faceplate is made of a transparent plastic material and the main frame 12 surrounds the faceplate, see lin. 3 para. 93 and lin. 2 para. 94); a waterproof skirt(40) having a portion embedded in the main frame and having a partition to divide the interior of the body into an upper chamber and a lower chamber (See Fig. 3 showing a waterproof skirt 40, a waterproof skirt 40 comprising a peripheral sealing lip 44 to prevent water from entering see lin. 1-2 para. 102, and the main frame 12 formed of two parts surrounding the upper and lower periphery of the waterproof skirt (40) see in lin. 3-8 para. 32, and Fig. 3 showing partition 46, the partition dividing the body into an upper chamber and lower chamber, see in lin. 2-3 para. 12); a purge valve disposed in a lower portion of the body and being in one-way fluid communication with the lower chamber (See Fig. 1-3 showing the purge valve 17, and the valve disposed in the lower portion of the body, see in lin. 2 para. 71). The Caprice et al. device is silent on a mouthpiece disposed at the lower chamber and having a first end to be contained in a mouth of a user and a second end opposite to the first end to be in fluid communication with the purge valve; however, Morgan et al. teaches a similar full-face mask device, which includes a mouthpiece disposed in the lower chamber with one end to be contained in the user’s mouth of the mask with a opposite end to be in fluid communication with the purge valve (see Morgan et al. Fig. 6 shows mouthpiece 130 and purge valve 150). Thus, 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 Caprice et al device’s lower chamber to include a mouthpiece, as taught by Morgan et al, to create a more efficient system for exhausting water through the purge valve and out of the lower chamber of the mask.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Caprice et al. device discloses the breathable mask as claimed in claim 1, but is silent on the body further including a connector disposed between the purge valve and the mouthpiece; however, Morgan et al. further discusses a mouthpiece/purge valve connection system (See annotated Fig. 6 below). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the known mask of Caprice et al. to include the connector, with the mouthpiece, with the connector/purge valve connection taught by Morgan et al., to create a more efficient system for water drainage by allowing the user’s mouth easier access to the purge valve for blowing water out.
PNG
media_image1.png
958
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Caprice et al. is silent on the connector being made of a rigid material selected from polycarbonate (PC), polyoxymethylene (POM), Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), Polyvinylchloride (PVC), Polyethylene (PE), Polypropylene (PP) or combinations thereof; however, elsewhere in Caprice et al., Caprice et al. teaches (the main frame 12 be made of a rigid plastic such as polypropylene or polycarbonate, see in lin. 2-3 para. 25); therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take these rigid plastics used for the main frame in this modified device, and apply them to other areas in the device where rigidity is sought such as the Connector between mouthpiece and purge valve since "polycarbonate (PC), polyoxymethylene (POM), Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), Polyvinylchloride (PVC), Polyethylene (PE), Polypropylene (PP) or combinations thereof " are well known in the art and choosing such materials is considered as an obvious design choice and it appears the modified Caprice's connector would perform equally well with the rigid " polycarbonate (PC), polyoxymethylene (POM), Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), Polyvinylchloride (PVC), Polyethylene (PE), Polypropylene (PP) or any combinations thereof " material.
Regarding Claim 12, the modified Caprice et al. device includes the mouthpiece being fixed to, integrally formed with or detachably connected to the purge valve (See in annotated Fig. 6 above).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Caprice et al. device includes the mouthpiece being made of a soft material and has a flexible tube body (See in annotated Fig. 6 above, and in Morgan et al., the mouthpiece is flexible and resilient and includes bits to enable the wearer to retain the mouthpiece gripped between the teeth in a known manner in lin. 22-24, Page. 25) .
Regarding Claim 14, the modified Caprice et al. discloses the breathable mask of claim 13, wherein the flexible tube body has a coiled tube curved structure or a multi-folded structure (See in Fig A, and in Morgan et. al., the mouthpiece is flexible and resilient and includes bits to enable the wearer to retain the mouthpiece gripped between the teeth in a known manner in lin. 22-24, Page. 25).
Regarding Claim 16, the modified Caprice et al. device discloses the breathable mask as claimed in claim 1, wherein the breathing tube includes an intake conduit and an exhaust conduit adjacent to the intake tube (See Fig. 11 in Caprice et al., showing inlet channel 60 and escape channels 62 and 64), and the body further including an intake passage formed between the intake conduit and the lower chamber (See in Caprice et al., the circulation of inhaled air directly from the upper chamber to the lower chamber lin. 3-4 para. 106, in Caprice et al. follow inhaled fresh air F1 found in lin. 8-9 para. 113, and follow F1 shown in Fig. 7 and 8 of Caprice et al. to see an intake passage form between central channel 70, inlet channel 60, and the upper and lower chambers), and provided with at least one intake one-way valve for fresh air entering from the outside through the intake conduit and the intake passage into the lower chamber (See in Caprice et al. second and third check valves 312 shown in Fig. 11, they close outlet orifices 306 and 308 during inhalation, see lin. 4-8 para. 130); and an exhaust passage formed between the exhaust conduit and the lower chamber (See in Caprice et al., Coupling sleeve lower end 100a and Coupling sleeve lower end 200a which connect to upper coupling sleeves 100b and 200b shown in Fig. 9, in Caprice et al. it will be understood that exhaled air successively flows through first coupling sleeve 100 through inner duct 90 and into escape channel this airflow as represented by F2 found in lin. 1-5 para. 122, See in Caprice et al. coupling sleeve 200 has same airflow system with airflow labeled F3 see lin. 5 para. 122, and see in Caprice et al. exhaled air entering ducts and leaving body and out of breathing tube in F2 and F3 forming exhaust passage in Fig. 9), and provided with at least one exhaust one-way valve for dirty air exhaled from the user to be discharged outwards through the exhaust passage and the exhaust conduit (See in Caprice et al. first check valve 310 shown in Fig. 11, close inlet orifices 304 during exhalation see lin. 2-3 para. 130).
12. Claim(s) 3-5,7, 9-10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caprice et al. (2016/0297505) in view of Morgan (WO 02/055379 A3), further in view of Giroux et al. (6,302,102)
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Caprice e. al. device discloses the breathable mask as claim 2, but is silent on the connector being fixed to, integrally formed with or detachably connected to at least one of the purge valve and the mouthpiece; however, Giroux et al. teaches a mouthpiece, and connector which is disposed between a purge valve and mouthpiece (Mouthpiece, connector, and valve see in annotated fig. 2 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the Caprice device, with the connector as taught by Giroux et al., in order to create a closer connection between the mouthpiece and purge valve, which would allow the user to exhale/push water through the purge valve more easily.
PNG
media_image2.png
824
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Caprice et. al. device discloses the breathable mask as claim 3, wherein the main frame includes a lens frame for the lens to be embedded therein (see in Fig. 2 Caprice et al. shows a main frame 12 splits into upper portion (14) and lower portion (16), the frame 12 surrounds the faceplate 18 as seen in lin. 1-2 para. 94), a mouth frame located below the lens frame, and the lens frame and mouth frame cover an eyes and the mouth of the user (see in Fig. 2 Caprice et al. shows the main frame 12 splits into upper portion (14) and lower portion (16)), wherein the waterproof skirt further includes a nose covering portion and a mouth skirt portion (see in annotated Fig. 2 Caprice below), the nose covering portion protrudes outwards between the lens frame and the mouth frame (see in annotated Fig. 2 Caprice below), and the purge valve is interposed between the mouth frame and the mouth skirt portion (Purge Valve 17 see in annotated Fig. 2 Caprice below, and purge valve arranged in the lower chamber as found in lin. 2 para. 71 in Caprice et al).
PNG
media_image3.png
666
786
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Caprice et. al. device discloses the breathable mask as claim 4, wherein the purge valve has a seat and a film disposed on the seat, and the seat is disposed on an opening formed on the mouth skirt portion (As seen in annotated Fig. 2 Caprice above)
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Caprice et. al. device discloses the breathable mask as claim 2, wherein the connector has at least one guiding hole formed on a sidewall thereof. (seen in annotated Fig. 2 Giroux below)
PNG
media_image4.png
824
546
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Caprice et. al. device discloses the breathable mask as claim 7, wherein the at least one guiding hole has an elongated, circular, oval or square profile (See in annotated Fig. 2 Giroux above)
Regarding Claim 10, the modified Caprice et. al. device discloses the breathable mask as claim 2, but is silent on distance between the second end of the mouthpiece and a seat of the purge valve ranges between 5 mm and 30 mm; however, given the relative small size of Connector 72 in Giroux, being used in the modified Caprice et al. device, and the lower chamber of Caprice et al. being designed to fit properly fit over the nose and mouth of a user, as Caprice et al. teaches their device as way to ensure proper face sealing and overcome the sealing failures of previous snorkels (see in lin. 1-8 para. 15 in Caprice et al.). The feature of choosing the particular dimension, i.e., between 5 mm and 30mm is considered as an obvious design choice since such dimension is necessary and would ensure the mask works properly and it appears that the modified C's device would perform equally well with this claimed dimension.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Caprice et. al. device discloses the breathable mask as claim 1, wherein a channel is formed between the mouthpiece and the purge valve, but is silent on the channel having an inner volume less than 20 ml; however, given the relative small size of Connector 72 in Giroux, being used in the modified Caprice et al. device, and the lower chamber of Caprice being designed to fit properly fit over the nose and mouth of a user, as Caprice teaches their device as way to ensure proper face sealing and overcome the sealing failures of previous snorkels (see in lin. 1-8 para. 15 in Caprice et al.). The feature of choosing the particular dimension, i.e., under 20 ml is considered as an obvious design choice since such dimension is necessary and would ensure the mask works properly and it appears that the modified C's device would perform equally well with this claimed dimension.
13. Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caprice et al. (2016/0297505) in view of Morgan (02/055379), in view of Giroux et al. (US 6,302,102 B1), and further in view of Hansen et a. (2016/0059051)
Regarding claim 6, the previously modified Caprice et al. device teaches the breathable mask of claim 5, but is silent on the connector is in hold-down connection with the purge valve, wherein the connector is provided with a male fastener, and the seat is provided with a female fastener being detachably coupled to the male fastener so that when the connector is assembled with the seat, the male fastener is fixed onto the seat after being resiliently pressed inward and resiliently returned outwards into the female fastener to make the connector be fixed on the seat; however, Hansen et al. teaches about a O-ring used to create a removable sealing connection with a valve and an outlet port of an APR(Sealing Member 37 shown in Fig. 4 Hansen et al., the sealing member is made of various resilient materials such as rubber or elastomers, and ensures substantially airtight seal found in lin. 10-11 para. 28-29 in Hansen et al.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention, to further modify the Caprice device connector to include this O-ring around the male fastener to create the hold down connection being claimed (Shown in Annotated Fig. 2 Giroux below). As Hansen et al. teaches this as a good style of connection in the art for an airtight seal(see in lin. 1-4 para. 29 Hansen et al.) and this would work in the modified Caprice device to allow the user to blow water through the purge valve more effectively.
PNG
media_image5.png
824
546
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Xiao (2020/0307749), Zheng (2018/0297676), Barone (2021/0284300), Shiue (2019/0358496), Lo et al. (2016/0271454), Johnson (2006/0272637), Resnick (US 6371116 B1), and Feng (US 5267556 A). These prior art include various full face snorkel/scuba masks, masks with lens embedded and various connectors.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEC ROBERT WAHL whose telephone number is (571)272-9880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Justine Yu can be reached at 571-272-4835. 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.
/Alec R Wahl/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JUSTINE R YU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785