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 .
Preliminary Amendment
This office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 3/30/23. As directed by the amendment: claims 7-14, 17-19 and 25 have been amended, claims 16 and 21-24 have been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-15, 17-20 and 25 are presently pending in the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “That is, is” on page 7, line 1 is suggested to be changed to --That is, in-- for grammatical reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 130. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: connection features for in claim 2.
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 Objections
Claims 1 and 2-15, 17-20 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a user” in line 4, suggested to be changed to --the user-- to refer back to the user recited in line 2.
Claim 1 recites “the face half mask” in lines 3 and 6 suggested to be changed to --the particle filtering face half mask-- for consistency.
Claims 2-15, 17-20 and 25 recites “A particle” in line 1, suggested to be changed to --The particle-- to refer back to the particle filtering face half mask of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 2-15, 17-20 and 25 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 1 recites “the ingress” in line 6, which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 12 recites “substantially” in two places, however it is unclear what the scope of the language following “substantially” includes.
Claim 17 recites “the minimum thickness” in line 5, which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szasz et al. (2019/0358473) in view of Yelken (10,834,978).
Regarding claim 1, in fig. 1-6A Szasz discloses a particle filtering face half mask configured to contact a nasal region, cheeks and a chin of a user (abstract), the particle filtering face half mask configured to provide respiratory protection, the face half mask comprising: a main body 16 configured to cover nostrils and a mouth of a user; and a seal 24 configured to form an interface between the main body and a skin surface of the user [0055], the seal configured to prevent the ingress of undesired particles into the face half mask [0055], and wherein the seal is connectable to a perimeter of the main body [0070], but does not explicitly recite that the seal is releasably connectable to a perimeter of the main body. However, in fig. 10A-10B Yelken teaches a face mask having a seal 1030 that is releasably connectable to a perimeter of the main body (see claim 1 “said soft shell cushion apparatus configured to clasp said lateral edges of said face mask, being detachable and re-useable” also Col. 10, ll. 42-63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Szasz’s seal and main body connection with a releasable connection, as taught by Yelken, for the purpose of providing the ability to remove the seal for cleaning or replacement as needed.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Szasz discloses that one or both of the seal and the main body comprise connection features (Fig. 10B of Yelken show a channel within 1030 that distal end of main body 1050 releasably extends into, see claim 1 of Yelken and Col. 10, ll. 42-63) for releasable connection between the seal and the main body.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Szasz discloses that the connection features comprise a channel on one of the seal (channel within seal 1030 that 1050 releasably extends into, Yelken) and the main body configured to engage a lip on the other of the seal and the main body (lip is the distal end of main body 1050, Yelken).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Szasz discloses that the channel extends around a perimeter of the one of the seal (fig. 10A-10B Yelken) and the main body, and the lip extends around a perimeter of the other of the seal and the main body (Fig. 10A-10B Yelken).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Szasz discloses that the channel extends fully around the perimeter of the one of the seal (Fig. 10A-10B Yelken) and the main body, and the lip extends fully around the perimeter of the other of the seal and the main body (Fig. 10A-10B Yelken).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Szasz discloses that at least one wall of the channel is configured to at least partially overlap the lip (Fig. 10B Yelken).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Szasz discloses that wherein at least one wall of the channel is resiliently deformable (“a soft U-shaped medical silicone tube-like structure 1030 for clasping the lateral edges of any face mask of similar circumference” Yelken Col. 10, ll. 47-49).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Szasz discloses that the channel is a c-shaped channel (see Fig. 10B Yelken, the “U-shaped” channel turned to the side is c-shaped).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Szasz discloses that the seal comprises the channel and the main body comprises the lip (Fig. 10B Yelken).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Szasz discloses that the seal is resiliently deformable ([0011] Szasz discloses a silicone face seal and Yelken teaches “a soft U-shaped medical silicone tube-like structure 1030 for clasping the lateral edges of any face mask of similar circumference” Col. 10, ll. 47-49).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Szasz discloses that the seal comprises a silicone material ([0011] Szasz discloses a silicone face seal and Yelken teaches “a soft U-shaped medical silicone tube-like structure 1030 for clasping the lateral edges of any face mask of similar circumference” Col. 10, ll. 47-49).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Szasz discloses that the seal comprises a material comprising a Shore A harness scale value of greater than or equal to substantially 15 Shore and less than or equal to substantially 20 Shore (Col. 11, ll. 2-5 Yelken).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Szasz discloses that a portion of the seal configured to contact the skin surface of the user comprises a profile corresponding to the nasal region, cheeks and chin of the user (Fig. 1-4 Szasz).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Szasz discloses that the profile corresponds to the nasal region, cheeks and chin of the user in an undeformed configuration (Fig. 1-4 Szasz).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Szasz discloses that wherein at least one of: a portion of the seal configured to extend between the main body and the chin of the user; a portion of the seal configured to extend between the main body and the nose of the user; and a portion of the seal configured to extend between the main body and a maxilla of the user is of a greater thickness than the minimum thickness (Figures 2 and 5 of Szasz show a greater seal thickness at the maxilla, chin and nose compared to a thinner portion of the seal between near the cheek region).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Szasz discloses that comprising a filter (14 and 12, Szasz).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Szasz discloses that the filter comprises a filter cap (12 Szasz) configured to receive filter material (14, see fig. 4 Szasz [0048]).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Szasz discloses that the filter cap is removably connectable to the main body ([0058] Szasz).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Szasz discloses that the mask is configured to provide protection against airborne pathogens ([0047] Szasz).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szasz and Yelken, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Gelinas et al. (2003/0029454).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Szasz does not explicitly state that the hardness of the main body is greater than the hardness of the seal. However, Gelinas teaches that the hardness of a main body 92 is greater than the hardness of a seal 90 [0026]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Szasz’s seal and main body with a main body that is harder than a seal, as taught by Gelinas, for the purpose of providing both comfort to the user and support to the seal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xu (2016/0213957) and Kim (KR 101619494) directed to filter face masks with seals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL T SIPPEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1481. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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.
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785