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 .
This office action is in response to the claims filed 6/23/23. Claims 1-23 are pending in the instant application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “support member” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 2-3, 7-8, and 11-12 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 2 recites the limitation "the nose panel free portion" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the mouth outer portion height" in line 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “about 0.4 to about 0.65” in claim 2 line 10-11 (emphasis added) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not known as to what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘about 0.4’ or ‘about 0.65’.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the mouth outer portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the nose panel free portion" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “about 0.4 to about 0.65” in claim 3 line 12 (emphasis added) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not known as to what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘about 0.4’ or ‘about 0.65’.
The term “about 1000%” in claim 7 line 3 (emphasis added) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not known as to what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘about 1000%’.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the facial attachment seal" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim.
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 (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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Furuya et al. (2021/0022418).
Regarding claim 1, Furuya discloses a respirator for filtering respirated air by covering a nose area to a jaw area of a user (see Fig. 1-8 and abstract, para. 0047, 0049) including a mask body (see Fig. 1-8, mask body 20, para. 0029) having a front mouth panel having a front panel outer portion extending from an upper mouth panel edge to a lower chin edge and a front panel fold portion extending from the upper mouth panel edge, the front panel fold portion located behind the front panel outer portion (see Fig. 7, juncture 61 separating front mouth panel and upper nose panel, front mouth panel being portion from below 61A from an upper edge to a lower chin edge at 20b, front panel outer portion being the outer surface in Fig. 7 opposite the user/wearer, front panel fold portion 61A, see para. 0077); and an upper nose panel having an upper nose panel fold portion and an upper nose panel free portion (see Fig. 7, portion from 61B and above defining the upper nose panel, the portion 61B being the fold portion with the upper portion towards upper mask edge 20a being the upper nose panel free portion, see para. 0077), the upper nose panel fold portion extending from the front panel fold portion and underlying the front mouth panel, and the upper nose panel free portion extending upwardly from the upper nose panel fold portion to an upper mask edge, the upper nose panel free portion located above the front mouth panel (see Fig. 7 which shows upper nose panel fold portion 61B underlying front mouth panel and the upper nose panel free portion extending upwardly therefrom to upper mask edge 20a and located above the front mouth panel, i.e. portion below 61A), a juncture of the upper nose panel fold portion and the front panel fold portion being a movable fold (see Fig. 7, movable fold 61 in that the user can move their head/body and thus fold 61 is movable, a user opening their mouth also would provide unfolding action of this fold while maintaining its positioning over the user’s mouth and nose, thus the upper nose panel movable with respect to the front mouth panel via the movable fold 61); the movable fold being upwardly movable between a closed mouth position and an open mouth position, an edge spacing between the upper mask edge and the upper mouth panel edge being greater in the open mouth position than in the closed mouth position (see Fig. 7, movable fold 61 providing unfolding action due to user opening/closing their mouth and thus providing the upper nose panel movable with respect to the front mouth panel where the edge spacing between upper mask edge and upper mouth panel edge greater when the user’s mouth is open vs. closed).
Regarding claim 9, the Furuya device’s movable fold is a rounded fold (see Fig. 7 which shows movable fold 61 being rounded).
Regarding claim 10, the Furuya device is such that a location of the rounded fold moves when the mask body moves between the open mouth position and the closed mouth position (see Fig. 7, movable fold 61 providing unfolding action due to user opening/closing their mouth and thus providing a moving location of the fold 61).
Regarding claim 13, the Furuya device’s front mouth panel and the upper nose panel are integrally formed (see Fig. 7).
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.
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya.
Regarding claim 2, the Furuya device is such that at a horizontal center of the mask body, the front panel outer portion, upper nose panel free portion, front panel fold portion, and upper nose panel fold portion each have a height such that in the closed mouth position a fold ratio exists as claimed (see Furuya Fig. 1 and 7 for example, above discussion regarding the open and closed mouth positions), but is silent as to the ratio being in the range of about 0.4 to about 0.65; however, this would have been obvious relative dimensional values to choose to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to provide desired shape of the respirator with regards to the user’s facial features and furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 200 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B.
Regarding claim 3, the Furuya device is such that the mouth outer portion, upper nose panel free portion, front panel fold portion , upper nose panel fold portion each have surface areas and an interior fold surface area and exterior mask body surface area (see Furuya Fig. 1 and 7 for example, above discussion regarding the open and closed mouth positions), but is silent as to the a ratio between the inner and exterior surface areas being in the range of about 0.4 to about 0.65; however, however, this would have been obvious relative dimensional values to choose to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to provide desired shape of the respirator with regards to the user’s facial features and furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 200 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya in view of Facer et al. (2008/0271739) (hereinafter Facer ‘739).
Regarding claim 4, the Furuya device’s front mouth panel further includes laterally spaced apart first and second rear edges each having an upper portion and a lower portion (see Furuya Fig. 1 and 7, the lateral left/right sides of the mask at the front mouth panel portion described with respect to Fig. 7 noted above, being first and second rear edges with upper and lower portions), but is silent as to including a tab projecting rearwardly from the mask edges; however, Facer ‘739 teaches a similar device which includes lateral/rear portions with tabs projecting rearwardly therefrom (see Facer ‘739 Fig. 1, 2, and 4, tabs 22 and 24, para. 0046). 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 Furuya device to include the tabs, as taught by Facer ‘739, in order to provide lateral securement structure for the user wearing the mask.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya and Facer as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Bayer (5,735,270).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Furuya device’s mask includes a perimeter edge region around the mask body for contacting the skin of the user (see Furuya Fig. 1 and 7 for example, outer perimeter edge), but is silent as to the perimeter edge region having a facial attachment seal for sealingly connecting the respirator to the skin of the user; however, Bayer teaches a similar respirator device which includes a facial attachment seal located at the perimeter edge region (see Bayer Fig. 9A-C, col. 3 ln. 25-38 and col. 7 ln. 40-56, facial attachment seal 424). 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 modified Furuya device to include a facial attachment seal, as taught by Bayer, in order to improve sealing attachment of the respirator mask to the user’s face (see Bayer col. 3 ln. 25-38). The now modified Furuya device’s tabs are located rearward of the facial attachment seal (see Furuya Fig. 1, seal of Bayer provided to the perimeter edge, modified by Facer Fig. 1-2 and 4 for example, to include rearward extending tabs such that the tabs also are located rearward of the seal).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya and Facer as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Duffy (2014/0182593).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Furuya device discloses first and second straps (see Furuya Fig. 1, straps 30, para. 0029), but is silent as to the first and second straps being attached to the mask body above and below the tabs of each rear edge; however, Duffy discloses a similar device with upper and lower straps and which includes different strap attachment locations, i.e. off of a tab (see Duffy Fig. 1 and 6, straps 26 and 27, one of which is located off of tabs 30a and 30b). 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 modified Furuya device’s straps to be the upper and lower type straps and to have attachment locations off of the tab, as taught by Duffy, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element/configuration for another and one would expect the modified Furuya device to perform equally as well and also would have been obvious rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya in view of Facer et al. (9,770,611).
Regarding claim 7, the Furuya device is silent as to the front mouth panel including at least three layers including an interior layer with a higher stiffness than at least two other layers to increase the stiffness of the front mouth panel; however, Facer teaches a similar device which includes this feature (see Facer col. 7 ln. 1-40, Fig. 9a and 9b, interior stiffening layer 48). 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 Furuya device to include at least three layers including an interior stiffening layer, as taught by Facer, in order to provide support for the filter mask with respect to the user’s face (Facer col. 7 ln. 18-31). The modified Furuya device discloses the stiffening layer can be made from a variety of different materials, and thus having different material properties/stiffness properties (see Facer col. 7 ln. 32-40) and 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 modified Furuya device’ stiffening layer to be such that it increases the stiffness of the front mouth panel by greater than about 1000% to provide desired level of support/stiffness and furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 200 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Furuya device’s front mouth panel includes a mouth portion and a chin portion and the interior layer with higher stiffness is positioned exclusively in the mouth portion (see Furuya Fig. 7 and above explanation of the front mouth panel, a chin portion being the lower portion thereof, such as from below portion 63A, see Facer col. 7 ln. 18-31 which discloses providing stiffening layer exclusively at a mouth panel/portion).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya in view of Bayer.
Regarding claim 11, the Furuya device is silent as to including a facial attachment seal having a contour layer and an adhesive layer; however, Bayer teaches a similar device which includes this feature (see Bayer Fig. 9A-C, col. 3 ln. 25-38 and col. 7 ln. 40-56, facial attachment seal 424, contour layer 426 and adhesive layer 430). 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 modified Furuya device to include a facial attachment seal, as taught by Bayer, in order to improve sealing attachment of the respirator mask to the user’s face (see Bayer col. 3 ln. 25-38).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya and Bayer as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Loughran (2020/0121004).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Furuya device’s contour layer includes foam (see Bayer col. 7 ln. 44-56), but is silent as to the foam being at least one of an open cell foam and a closed cell foam; however, Loughran discloses a similar device which includes a foam seal being at least one of an open cell foam and a closed cell foam (see Loughran para. 0043 and 0045, Fig. 1-2). 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 modified Furuya device’s foam layer to be at least one of an open cell foam and a closed cell foam, as taught by Loughran, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element/material for another and one would expect the modified Furuya device to perform equally as well.
Claim(s) 14-15 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya in view of Facer et al. (9,770,611).
Regarding claim 14, Furuya discloses a respirator for filtering respirated air by covering a nose area to a jaw area of a user (see Fig. 1-8 and abstract, para. 0047, 0049) including a mask body (see Fig. 1-8, mask body 20, para. 0029) having a front mouth panel having a front panel outer portion extending from an upper mouth panel edge to a lower chin edge and a front panel fold portion extending from the upper mouth panel edge, the front panel fold portion located behind the front panel outer portion (see Fig. 7, juncture 61 separating front mouth panel and upper nose panel, front mouth panel being portion from below 61A from an upper edge to a lower chin edge at 20b, front panel outer portion being the outer surface in Fig. 7 opposite the user/wearer, front panel fold portion 61A, see para. 0077); and an upper nose panel having an upper nose panel fold portion and an upper nose panel free portion (see Fig. 7, portion from 61B and above defining the upper nose panel, the portion 61B being the fold portion with the upper portion towards upper mask edge 20a being the upper nose panel free portion, see para. 0077), the upper nose panel fold portion extending from the front panel fold portion and underlying the front mouth panel, and the upper nose panel free portion extending upwardly from the upper nose panel fold portion to an upper mask edge, the upper nose panel free portion located above the front mouth panel (see Fig. 7 which shows upper nose panel fold portion 61B underlying front mouth panel and the upper nose panel free portion extending upwardly therefrom to upper mask edge 20a and located above the front mouth panel, i.e. portion below 61A), a juncture of the upper nose panel fold portion and the front panel fold portion being a movable fold (see Fig. 7, movable fold 61 in that the user can move their head/body and thus fold 61 is movable, a user opening their mouth also would provide unfolding action of this fold while maintaining its positioning over the user’s mouth and nose, thus the upper nose panel movable with respect to the front mouth panel via the movable fold 61); the movable fold being upwardly movable between a closed mouth position and an open mouth position, (see Fig. 7, movable fold 61 providing unfolding action due to user opening/closing their mouth and thus providing the upper nose panel movable with respect to the front mouth panel where the edge spacing between upper mask edge and upper mouth panel edge greater when the user’s mouth is open vs. closed).
Furuya is silent as to the lower chin edge being mechanically linked to the upper mouth panel edge by a support member to provide the movement; however, Facer teaches a similar device which includes this feature (see Facer col. 7 ln. 1-40, Fig. 9a and 9b, support member 48 provided to a mouth panel portion only).
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 Furuya device to include a support member, as taught by Facer, in order to provide support for the filter mask with respect to the user’s face (Facer col. 7 ln. 18-31). The now modified Furuya device movement of the lower chin edge causes movement of the upper mouth panel edge via the mechanical linking provided by the support member of Facer and the upper mouth panel edge is mechanically decoupled from the upper mask edge for independent movement (col. 7 ln. 18-31 which discloses providing stiffening layer exclusively at a mouth panel/portion).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Furuya device is such that an edge spacing between the upper mask edge and the upper mouth panel edge being greater in the open mouth position than in the closed mouth position (see Furuya Fig. 7, movable fold 61 providing unfolding action due to user opening/closing their mouth and thus providing the upper nose panel movable with respect to the front mouth panel where the edge spacing between upper mask edge and upper mouth panel edge greater when the user’s mouth is open vs. closed).
Regarding claim 21, the modified Furuya device’s front mouth panel and the upper nose panel are integrally formed (see Furuya Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya and Facer as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Bostock et al. (6,123,077).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Furuya device’s fold portions are attached to the mouth panel at rear edges to constrain movement (see Furuya Fig. 1 and 7, fold portions attached at rear, lateral edges), but is silent as to including first and second seams as claimed; however, Bostock teaches a similar device which includes seams at the edges (see Bostock Fig. 1-6, seams at 11, see abstract and col. 11 ln. 35-47 for example). 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 modified Furuya device to include seams, as taught by Bostock, as this is a well-known method/element to connect parts of such a filtering respirator mask and would have been obvious to try.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya and Facer as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Law et al. (2021/0352976).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Furuya device is silent as to the front mouth panel including a spine extending from the upper edge to the lower chin edge and attached to at least a portion of the support member; however, Law teaches a similar respirator device including a spine on a front portion thereof (see Law Fig. 1-3, spine 14, see para. 0029). 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 modified Furuya device to include a spine, as taught by Law, in order to provide a larger chamber for the user’s face (see Law para. 0029).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya and Facer as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Bayer.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Furuya device includes an edge forming a perimeter of the mask body (see Furuya Fig. 1 for example), but is silent as to including a facial attachment seal having a contour layer and an adhesive layer; however, Bayer teaches a similar device which includes this feature (see Bayer Fig. 9A-C, col. 3 ln. 25-38 and col. 7 ln. 40-56, facial attachment seal 424, contour layer 426 and adhesive layer 430). 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 modified Furuya device to include a facial attachment seal, as taught by Bayer, in order to improve sealing attachment of the respirator mask to the user’s face (see Bayer col. 3 ln. 25-38).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Furuya device’s facial attachment seal has a contour layer and an adhesive layer (see Bayer Fig. 9A-C, col. 3 ln. 25-38 and col. 7 ln. 40-56, facial attachment seal 424, contour layer 426 and adhesive layer 430).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya, Facer, and Bayer as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Loughran.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Furuya device’s contour layer includes foam (see Bayer col. 7 ln. 44-56), but is silent as to the foam being at least one of an open cell foam, a closed cell foam, and a hydrocolloid; however, Loughran discloses a similar device which includes a foam seal being at least one of an open cell foam and a closed cell foam (see Loughran para. 0043 and 0045, Fig. 1-2). 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 modified Furuya device’s foam layer to be at least one of an open cell foam and a closed cell foam, as taught by Loughran, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element/material for another and one would expect the modified Furuya device to perform equally as well.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya and Facer as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Facer ‘739.
Regarding claim 22, the modified Furuya device’s front mouth panel further includes laterally spaced apart first and second rear edges each having an upper portion and a lower portion (see Furuya Fig. 1 and 7, the lateral left/right sides of the mask at the front mouth panel portion described with respect to Fig. 7 noted above, being first and second rear edges with upper and lower portions), but is silent as to including a tab projecting rearwardly from the mask edges; however, Facer ‘739 teaches a similar device which includes lateral/rear portions with tabs projecting rearwardly therefrom (see Facer ‘739 Fig. 1, 2, and 4, tabs 22 and 24, para. 0046). 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 Furuya device to include the tabs, as taught by Facer ‘739, in order to provide lateral securement structure for the user wearing the mask.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya, Facer, Facer ‘739 as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Bayer.
Regarding claim 23, the modified Furuya device’s mask includes a perimeter edge region around the mask body for contacting the skin of the user (see Furuya Fig. 1 and 7 for example, outer perimeter edge), but is silent as to the perimeter edge region having a facial attachment seal for sealingly connecting the respirator to the skin of the user; however, Bayer teaches a similar respirator device which includes a facial attachment seal located at the perimeter edge region (see Bayer Fig. 9A-C, col. 3 ln. 25-38 and col. 7 ln. 40-56, facial attachment seal 424). 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 modified Furuya device to include a facial attachment seal, as taught by Bayer, in order to improve sealing attachment of the respirator mask to the user’s face (see Bayer col. 3 ln. 25-38). The now modified Furuya device’s tabs are located rearward of the facial attachment seal (see Furuya Fig. 1, seal of Bayer provided to the perimeter edge, modified by Facer Fig. 1-2 and 4 for example, to include rearward extending tabs such that the tabs also are located rearward of the seal).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chien (EP 2589413), Lee (2005/0051172), Wagner (2020/0113256), Duffy (2020/0390167), and Suzuki et al. (2013/0186414) disclose filtering respirator masks similar to the claimed/disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W STUART whose telephone number is (571)270-7490. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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.
/COLIN W STUART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785