DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 05/21/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-16 are currently amended. Claims 3, 13, and 17-18 are as previously presented. Claim 19 is new. As such, claims 1-19 are pending in the instant application.
All objections are withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 8-9: “said first polypropylene and said second polypropylene outer layers” should read “said first polypropylene outer layer and second polypropylene outer layer” for consistency and clarity.
Claim 12, lines 6-7: “and said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layers” should read “and said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer” for consistency and clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunson et al. (US 6055982 A; hereinafter “Brunson”) in view of Spence et al. (US 20060130841 A1; hereinafter “Spence”), and in further view of Mathis et al. (US 20070044801 A1; hereinafter “Mathis”).
Regarding claim 1, Brunson discloses a face mask (210; Fig. 4), comprising:
a first polypropylene outer layer (236; Fig. 4; Col. 14, lines 29-32);
a second polypropylene outer layer (238; Fig. 5; Col. 14, lines 37-38);
a combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer (240 and 242; Fig. 5; Col. 12, lines 65-66; Col. 14, lines 49-58) arranged between said first polypropylene outer layer and said second polypropylene outer layer (240 and 242 are arranged between 236 and 238, see Fig. 5).
While Brunson does disclose tie strips (216 and 218; Figs. 4-5) fixed to respective flaps (230 and 232; Figs. 4-5), where the respective flaps (230 and 232; Figs. 4-5) are integrally attached to a filter body (228; Figs. 4-5) at respective bonded areas (250a and 252a; Figs. 4-5), Brunson fails to disclose at least one strap fixed to an outside surface of one of said first polypropylene and said second polypropylene outer layers.
However, Spence teaches an analogous face mask with tie straps (48; Figs. 1-2) that are fixed to opposite sides of a body portion of a mask (12; Fig. 1) via ultrasonic bonding (38 and 40, see Fig. 2; [0050]), where the ultrasonic bonding of the tie straps (see 38 and 40; Fig. 2; [0050]) fix horizontal folds of an outer layer (20; Fig. 2; [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tie strips and respective flaps taught by Brunson with the tie straps and ultrasonic bonds taught by Spence, such that at least one strap (Spence 48; Spence Fig. 2) fixed to an outside surface of one of said first polypropylene and said second polypropylene outer layers (Spence 48 fixed to Brunson 236 via an ultrasonic bond, as taught by Spence, see Spence [0050] and Spence Fig. 2) to minimize the cost of the face mask by reducing the amount of material used.
Brunson, alone or as modified by Spence above, fails to teach the combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer forming a laminate structure that resists penetration by a fluid at a pressure of at least 120 mmHg.
However, Mathis teaches an analogous face mask (10; Figs. 1-2) with an intermediate layer (34; Fig. 4) made of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) ([0028]) that is incorporated into a multi-layer composite including at least one layer made of polypropylene ([0024]-[0025]), wherein the face mask has a fluid penetration resistance of greater than or equal to about 120 mmHg ([0032], lines 22-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the intermediate layers (240, 242, where 240 and 242 are made of polypropylene and/or PTFE, see claim 1 above), as taught by Brunson, to be resistant to penetration by a fluid at a pressure of at least 120 mmHg, as taught by Mathis ([0032], lines 22-23), to improve patient protection and safety from potential hazardous substances, such as blood ([0032], lines 19-22), and situations, such as infection.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunson (US 6055982 A) in view of Spence (US 20060130841 A1) in view of Mathis (US 20070044801 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bostock et al. (EP 2229983 A1; hereinafter “Bostock”).
Regarding claim 2, Brunson as modified teaches the invention as set forth above in claim 1, further comprising:
a first weld arranged to fuse an outside perimeter of said first polypropylene outer layer and said second polypropylene outer layer and said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer (244a, 246a, Spence 38, and Spence 40; Fig. 5; Spence Fig. 2; Col. 13, lines 15-22, where the lateral edge bond areas 252a and 250a are Spence 38 and Spence 40, see claim 1 above), said first weld is further arranged to pleat said first polypropylene outer layer and said second polypropylene outer layer and said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer (Col. 11, lines 1-3, hence all layers are pleated; Spence [0050], where 38 and 40 fix the pleats of the layers);
a flexible nose piece (248; Fig. 5), said flexible nose piece secured within a sleeve (248 is place in between two 244a welds, see highlighted bonds in Annotated Fig. 5 below, hence 248 is secured within a sleeve).
Brunson as modified fails to teach said sleeve formed by a fold of said first polypropylene outer layer, said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer and said second polypropylene outer layer to either an external surface of said first polypropylene outer layer or an external surface of said second polypropylene outer layer via a sleeve weld.
However, Bostock teaches an analogous face mask (50; Fig. 8) with a nose clip (60; Fig. 8) located within a sleeve created by an outer edge of a first member (54; Fig. 8) being folded inward (Col. 7, lines 47-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mask taught by Brunson with the sleeve arrangement to retain a flexible nose piece, as taught by Bostock, such that said flexible nose piece (248; Fig. 5) secured within a sleeve, said sleeve formed by a fold of said first polypropylene outer layer, said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer and said second polypropylene outer layer to either an external surface of said first polypropylene outer layer or an external surface of said second polypropylene outer layer via a sleeve weld (top edge 244 is folded inward and secured by ultrasonic sleeve weld 244a, as taught by Bostock Col.7, lines 47-50) to improve the fit of the face mask (Bostock Col. 7, lines 46-50).
PNG
media_image1.png
245
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5
Regarding claim 3, Brunson as modified teaches the invention as set forth above in claim 2, wherein said first weld and said sleeve weld are provided by ultrasonic welding techniques (Col. 12, lines 13-19; Spence [0050]).
Regarding claim 4, Brunson as modified teaches the invention as set forth above in claim 2, wherein said first weld (244a, 246a, Spence 38, and Spence 40; Fig. 5, where the lateral edge bond areas 252a and 250a are Spence 38 and Spence 40, see claim 1 above; Spence Fig. 2) includes a pair of horizontal welds (244a and 246a; Fig. 5) and a pair of vertical welds (Spence 38 and Spence 40; Spence Fig. 2; see claim 1 above), said pair of horizontal welds arranged proximate to a pair of horizontal and parallelly arranged external borders of said mask (244a and 246a arranged proximate and parallel to horizontal external borders of 210, see Fig. 5), said pair of vertical welds (Spence 38 and Spence 40; Spence Fig. 2; see claim 1 above) arranged proximate to a pair of vertical and parallelly arranged external borders of said mask (Spence 38 and Spence 40 arranged proximate and parallel to vertical external borders of 210; Fig. 5; Spence Fig. 2), said pair of vertical welds further arranged to pleat said first polypropylene outer layer and said second polypropylene outer layer and said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer (Col. 11, lines 1-3, hence all layers are pleated; Spence [0050], where 38 and 40 fix the pleats of the layers).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunson (US 6055982 A) in view of Spence (US 20060130841 A1) in view of Mathis (US 20070044801 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Su & Cui (CN 111567948 A; hereinafter “Su”).
Regarding claim 5, Brunson as modified teaches the invention as set forth above in claim 1. While Brunson as modified does not explicitly teach a combination of said first polypropylene outer layer (236; Fig. 4; Col. 14, lines 29-32), second polypropylene outer layer (238; Fig. 5; Col. 14, lines 37-38), and said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer (240 and 242; Fig. 5; Col. 12, lines 65-66; Col. 14, lines 49-58) have a bacterial filtration efficiency (BFE) of 100%, Brunson does teach the face mask (210; Fig. 4) has a high filtration capability due to the combination of the outer and inner layers (Col. 2, lines 23-34; Col. 4, lines 60-67). Furthermore, Brunson as modified teaches all claimed structures and materials of claim 1, hence the face mask (210; Fig. 4; claim 1 above) inherently has a bacterial filtration efficiency of 100%.
In further support, Su teaches an analogous face mask with a polytetrafluoroethylene layer ([0009], see provided translation), where the face mask has a bacterial filtration efficiency of greater than 99% ([0029], see provided translation), where 100% is included in the range of greater than 99%.
Therefore, it would be well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the face mask (210; Fig. 4) taught by Brunson as modified has a bacterial filtration efficiency of 100% for at least the reason presented above.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunson (US 6055982 A) in view of Spence (US 20060130841 A1) in view of Mathis (US 20070044801 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jiang et al. (Jiang, D., Zhang, W., Liu, J. et al. Filtration and regeneration behavior of polytetrafluoroethylene membrane for dusty gas treatment. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 25, 744–753 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-008-0122-2; hereinafter “Jiang”).
Regarding claim 6, Brunson as modified teaches the invention as set forth above in claim 1. While Brunson as modified does not explicitly teach a combination of said first polypropylene outer layer (236; Fig. 4; Col. 14, lines 29-32), second polypropylene outer layer (238; Fig. 5; Col. 14, lines 37-38), and said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer (240 and 242; Fig. 5; Col. 12, lines 65-66; Col. 14, lines 49-58) have a particulate filtration efficiency (PFE) of greater than 98%, Brunson does teach the face mask (210; Fig. 4) has a high filtration capability due to the combination of the outer and inner layers (Col. 2, lines 23-34; Col. 4, lines 60-67). Furthermore, Brunson as modified teaches all claimed structures and materials of claim 1, hence the face mask (210; Fig. 4; claim 1 above) inherently has a particulate filtration efficiency of greater than 98%.
Additionally, Jiang presents findings that a PTFE membrane filter media had a filtration efficiency of greater than 99.99% for micron particles (see Table 1; Pg. 748, second paragraph).
Therefore, it would be well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the face mask (210; Fig. 4) taught by Brunson as modified has a particulate filtration efficiency of greater than 98% for at least the reasons presented above.
Regarding claim 7, Brunson as modified teaches the invention as set forth above in claim 1. While Brunson as modified does not explicitly teach a combination of said first polypropylene outer layer (236; Fig. 4; Col. 14, lines 29-32), second polypropylene outer layer (238; Fig. 5; Col. 14, lines 37-38), and said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer (240 and 242; Fig. 5; Col. 12, lines 65-66; Col. 14, lines 49-58) have a particulate filtration efficiency (PFE) of greater than 99%, Brunson does teach the face mask (210; Fig. 4) has a high filtration capability due to the combination of the outer and inner layers (Col. 2, lines 23-34; Col. 4, lines 60-67). Furthermore, Brunson as modified teaches all claimed structures and materials of claim 1, hence the face mask (210; Fig. 4; claim 1 above) inherently has a particulate filtration efficiency of greater than 99%.
Additionally, Jiang presents findings that a PTFE membrane filter media had a filtration efficiency of greater than 99.99% for micron particles (see Table 1; Pg. 748, second paragraph).
Therefore, it would be well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the face mask (210; Fig. 4) taught by Brunson as modified has a particulate filtration efficiency of greater than 99% for at least the reasons presented above.
Claims 8, 10-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunson (US 6055982 A) in view of Reese et al. (US 20180007982 A1; hereinafter “Reese”), and in further view of Mathis (US 20070044801 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Brunson discloses a face mask (210; Fig. 4), comprising:
a first polypropylene outer layer (236; Fig. 4; Col. 14, lines 29-32);
a second polypropylene outer layer (238; Fig. 5; Col. 14, lines 37-38); and
a combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer (240 and 242; Fig. 5; Col. 12, lines 65-66; Col. 14, lines 49-58) arranged between said first polypropylene outer layer and second polypropylene outer layer (240 and 242 are arranged between 236 and 238, see Fig. 5).
Brunson fails to disclose the first polypropylene outer layer having an aperture; the second polypropylene outer layer having an aperture; the combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer having an aperture; a transparent window arranged to overlap said apertures of said first polypropylene outer layer, said second polypropylene outer layer and said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer, said transparent window fixedly secured to an external surface of said first polypropylene outer layer; and at least one strap fixed to an external surface of one of said first polypropylene outer layer or said second polypropylene outer layer.
However, Reese teaches an analogous face mask with filtering layers that have a void (void 15 formed in body of filtration media 2; see Figs. 4A-4C; [0071], lines 7-17), where a transparent film (16; Fig. 1) is secured to a front side of the body of the filtration media (see Figs. 2 and 4A; [0062]-[0063]) via ultrasonic welding ([0089] and [0095]-[0096]), where a section of the transparent film (16; Fig. 1) aligned with the void (15) forms a see-through portion in the filtering media (see Fig. 1; [0071]-[0072]). Reese further teaches attaching members (6; Figs. 1 and 3) that can be fixed to the facemask in accordance with any suitable method known in the art (Fig. 2; [0099]), where it is well-known by one of ordinary skill in the art to fix attaching members, such as straps or tie strips, to the external surface off the outer-most layer or the inner-most layer of a face mask.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the face mask taught by Brunson with the above features taught by Reese, such that the first polypropylene outer layer (236; Fig. 4; Col. 14, lines 29-32) having an aperture (Reese 15; Reese [0071]); the second polypropylene outer layer (238; Fig. 5; Col. 14, lines 37-38) having an aperture (Reese 15; Reese [0071]); the combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer (240 and 242; Fig. 5; Col. 12, lines 65-66; Col. 14, lines 49-58) having an aperture (Reese 15; Reese [0071]); a transparent window (Reese 16; Reese Fig. 1) arranged to overlap said apertures of said first polypropylene outer layer, said second polypropylene outer layer and said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer (Reese Figs. 4A-4C; Reese [0071]-[0072]), said transparent window fixedly secured to an external surface of said first polypropylene outer layer (Reese Fig. 4C; Reese [0071]-[0072]); and at least one strap fixed to an external surface of one of said first polypropylene outer layer or said second polypropylene outer layer (Reese 6; Reese [0099]) to improve communication between the wearer and others when the mask is being worn (Reese [0007]).
Brunson further fails to disclose the combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer forming a laminate structure that resists penetration by a fluid at a pressure of at least 120 mmHg.
However, Mathis teaches an analogous face mask (10; Figs. 1-2) with an intermediate layer (34; Fig. 4) made of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) ([0028]) that is incorporated into a multi-layer composite including at least one layer made of polypropylene ([0024]-[0025]), wherein the face mask has a fluid penetration resistance of greater than or equal to about 120 mmHg ([0032], lines 22-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the intermediate layers (240, 242, where 240 and 242 are made of polypropylene and/or PTFE, see claim 1 above), as taught by Brunson, to be resistant to penetration by a fluid at a pressure of at least 120 mmHg, as taught by Mathis ([0032], lines 22-23), to improve patient protection and safety from potential hazardous substances, such as blood ([0032], lines 19-22), and situations, such as infection.
Regarding claim 10, Brunson as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 8, wherein said first weld (244a, 246a, Reese ultrasonic welds along 31; Col. 13, lines 15-22, where the lateral edge bond areas 252a and 250a are Reese ultrasonic welds 31, see Reese [0062]-[0063]) includes a pair of horizontal welds (244a and 246a; Fig. 5) and a pair of vertical welds (Reese ultrasonic welds along 31; Reese Fig. 2), said pair of horizontal welds (244a and 246a; Fig. 5) arranged proximate to a pair of horizontal and parallelly arranged external borders of said mask (244a and 246a arranged proximate and parallel to horizontal external borders of 210, see Fig. 5), said pair of vertical welds (Reese ultrasonic weld along 31; Reese Fig. 2) arranged proximate to a pair of vertical and parallelly arranged external borders of said mask (Reese ultrasonic welds along 31 are arranged proximate and parallel to vertical external borders of 210; Fig. 5; Reese Fig. 2), said pair of vertical welds further arranged to pleat said first polypropylene outer layer, said second polypropylene outer layer and said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer (Col. 11, lines 1-3, hence all layers are pleated; Reese [0095]-[0096]).
Regarding claim 11, Brunson as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 10, wherein said pair of vertical welds (Reese ultrasonic welds along 31; Reese Fig. 2) pleat said first polypropylene outer layer, said second polypropylene outer layer and said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer (Col. 11, lines 1-3, hence all layers are pleated; Reese [0095]-[0096]) in a manner that creates four panels having three different levels of depth (see Fig. 4, where pleats 233, 234, and 235 create 4 panels, where pleat 233 is folded in a reverse direction compared to pleats 234 and 235, hence the four panels have three different levels of depth; Col. 11, lines 48-56), said levels of depth include a distal depth, an intermediate depth, and a proximate depth (see Annotated Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
357
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5
Regarding claim 12, Brunson as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 11, wherein said four panels comprise:
a lower boundary panel (arranged at bottom edge 246, see Fig. 4 and Annotated Fig. 5 above), said lower boundary panel arranged at said proximate depth (see Annotated Fig. 5 above);
an upper boundary panel (arranged at top edge 244, see Fig. 4 and Annotated Fig. 5 above), said upper boundary panel arranged at said intermediate depth (see Annotated Fig. 5 above);
a connecting panel (formed by pleat 235 and pleat 234, see Fig. 4 and Annotated Fig. 5 above), said connecting panel arranged at said intermediate depth (see Annotated Fig. 5 above); and,
a window panel (formed by pleat 234 and pleat 233, see Fig. 4 and Annotated Fig. 5 above) comprising said apertures of said first polypropylene outer layer, said second polypropylene outer layer and said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layers (Reese 15; Reese [0071]-[0072]; Reese Figs. 4A-4C), said window panel comprising said window (Reese 16; Reese Fig. 4C; Reese [0071]-[0072]), said window panel arranged at said distal depth (see Annotated Fig. 5 above),
wherein said upper boundary panel is integrally connected to said window panel, said window panel is integrally connected to said connecting panel, said connecting panel is integrally connected to said lower boundary panel (see Fig. 4 and Annotated Fig. 5 above; Col. 11, lines 48-56).
Regarding claim 17, Brunson as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 8, wherein said transparent window (Reese 16; Fig. 1) is made of polyethylene (Reese [0064]).
Regarding claim 18, Brunson as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 17, wherein said transparent window (Reese 16; Reese Fig. 1) comprises approximately 99.79% polyethylene (Reese [0064], where Reese 16 is “formed of one or more of a polyester, polyethylene, polypropylene, polycarbonate, or plastic material”, hence Reese can be formed of only polyethylene, where 100% polyethylene, as taught by Reese, can be interpreted as approximately 99.79% polyethylene).
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunson (US 6055982 A) in view of Reese (US 20180007982 A1) in view of Mathis (US 20070044801 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bostock (EP 2229983 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Brunson as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 8, further comprising:
a first weld arranged to fuse an outside perimeter of said first polypropylene outer layer, said second polypropylene outer layer and said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer (244a, 246a, Reese ultrasonic weld along 31; Col. 13, lines 15-22, where the lateral edge bond areas 252a and 250a are Reese ultrasonic welds 31, see Reese [0062]-[0063]), said first weld is further arranged to pleat said first polypropylene outer layer, said second polypropylene outer layer and said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer (Col. 11, lines 1-3, hence all layers are pleated; Reese [0095]-[0096]);
a second weld (Reese 72, see Reese [0089]) arranged to fuse said transparent window to said external surface of said first polypropylene outer layer or said external surface of said second polypropylene outer layer (Reese 72 fuses Reese 16 with external surface of 238 or 236, see Reese [0089] and [0071]-[0072]; see claim 8 above), said second weld arranged to fuse said first polypropylene outer layer, said second polypropylene outer layer and said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer about an outside perimeter of said apertures of said first polypropylene outer layer and said second polypropylene outer layer and said aperture of said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer (Reese [0072] and [0089]); and,
a flexible nose piece (248; Fig. 5), said flexible nose piece secured within a sleeve (248 is place in between two 244a welds, see highlighted bonds in Annotated Fig. 5 below, hence 248 is secured within a sleeve).
Brunson as modified fails to teach said sleeve formed by a fold of said first outer layer, said inner layer and said second outer layer to either an external surface of said first outer layer or an external surface of said second outer layer via a sleeve weld.
However, Bostock teaches an analogous face mask (50; Fig. 8) with a nose clip (60; Fig. 8) located within a sleeve created by an outer edge of a first member (54; Fig. 8) being folded inward (Col. 7, lines 47-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mask taught by Brunson with the sleeve arrangement to retain a flexible nose piece, as taught by Bostock, such that said flexible nose piece (248; Fig. 5) secured within a sleeve, said sleeve formed by a fold of said first polypropylene outer layer, said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer and said second polypropylene outer layer to either an external surface of said first polypropylene outer layer or an external surface of said second polypropylene outer layer via a sleeve weld (top edge 244 is folded inward and secured by ultrasonic sleeve weld 244a, as taught by Bostock Col.7, lines 47-50) to improve the fit of the face mask (Bostock Col. 7, lines 46-50).
PNG
media_image1.png
245
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5
Regarding claim 13, Brunson as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 9, wherein said first weld (244a, 246a, Reese ultrasonic weld along 31; Col. 13, lines 15-22, where the lateral edge bond areas 252a and 250a are Reese ultrasonic welds 31, see Reese [0062]-[0063]), said second weld (Reese 72, see Reese [0089]) and said sleeve weld (top edge 244 is folded inward and secured by ultrasonic sleeve weld 244a, as taught by Bostock Col.7, lines 47-50) are provided by ultrasonic welding techniques (Col. 12, lines 13-19; Reese [0062]-[0063] and [0089]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunson (US 6055982 A) in view of Reese (US 20180007982 A1) in view of Mathis (US 20070044801 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Su (CN 111567948 A).
Regarding claim 14, Brunson as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 8. While Brunson as modified does not explicitly teach a combination of said first polypropylene outer layer (236; Fig. 4; Col. 14, lines 29-32), second polypropylene outer layer (238; Fig. 5; Col. 14, lines 37-38), and said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer (240 and 242; Fig. 5; Col. 12, lines 65-66; Col. 14, lines 49-58) have a bacterial filtration efficiency (BFE) of 100%, Brunson does teach the face mask (210; Fig. 4) has a high filtration capability due to the combination of the outer and inner layers (Col. 2, lines 23-34; Col. 4, lines 60-67). Furthermore, Brunson as modified teaches all claimed structures and materials of claim 1, hence the face mask (210; Fig. 4; claim 1 above) inherently has a bacterial filtration efficiency of 100%.
In further support, Su teaches an analogous face mask with a polytetrafluoroethylene layer ([0009], see provided translation), where the face mask has a bacterial filtration efficiency of greater than 99% ([0029], see provided translation), where 100% is included in the range of greater than 99%.
Therefore, it would be well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the face mask (210; Fig. 4) taught by Brunson as modified has a bacterial filtration efficiency of 100% for at least the reason presented above.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunson (US 6055982 A) in view of Reese (US 20180007982 A1) in view of Mathis (US 20070044801 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Jiang (Jiang, D., Zhang, W., Liu, J. et al. Filtration and regeneration behavior of polytetrafluoroethylene membrane for dusty gas treatment. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 25, 744–753 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-008-0122-2).
Regarding claim 15, Brunson as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 8. While Brunson as modified does not explicitly teach a combination of said first polypropylene outer layer (236; Fig. 4; Col. 14, lines 29-32), second polypropylene outer layer (238; Fig. 5; Col. 14, lines 37-38), and said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer (240 and 242; Fig. 5; Col. 12, lines 65-66; Col. 14, lines 49-58) have a particulate filtration efficiency (PFE) of greater than 98%, Brunson does teach the face mask (210; Fig. 4) has a high filtration capability due to the combination of the outer and inner layers (Col. 2, lines 23-34; Col. 4, lines 60-67). Furthermore, Brunson as modified teaches all claimed structures and materials of claim 1, hence the face mask (210; Fig. 4; claim 1 above) inherently has a particulate filtration efficiency of greater than 98%.
Additionally, Jiang presents findings that a PTFE membrane filter media had a filtration efficiency of greater than 99.99% for micron particles (see Table 1; Pg. 748, second paragraph).
Therefore, it would be well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the face mask (210; Fig. 4) taught by Brunson as modified has a particulate filtration efficiency of greater than 98% for at least the reasons presented above.
Regarding claim 16, Brunson as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 8. While Brunson as modified does not explicitly teach a combination of said first polypropylene outer layer (236; Fig. 4; Col. 14, lines 29-32), second polypropylene outer layer (238; Fig. 5; Col. 14, lines 37-38), and said combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer (240 and 242; Fig. 5; Col. 12, lines 65-66; Col. 14, lines 49-58) have a particulate filtration efficiency (PFE) of greater than 99%, Brunson does teach the face mask (210; Fig. 4) has a high filtration capability due to the combination of the outer and inner layers (Col. 2, lines 23-34; Col. 4, lines 60-67). Furthermore, Brunson as modified teaches all claimed structures and materials of claim 1, hence the face mask (210; Fig. 4; claim 1 above) inherently has a particulate filtration efficiency of greater than 99%.
Additionally, Jiang presents findings that a PTFE membrane filter media had a filtration efficiency of greater than 99.99% for micron particles (see Table 1; Pg. 748, second paragraph).
Therefore, it would be well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the face mask (210; Fig. 4) taught by Brunson as modified has a particulate filtration efficiency of greater than 99% for at least the reasons presented above.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunson (US 6055982 A) in view of Reese (US 20180007982 A1) in view of Mathis (US 20070044801 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hahne (WO 2006034227 A2).
Regarding claim 19, Brunson as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 8, but fails to teach a removable window cover arranged over a surface of said transparent window.
However, Hahne teaches an analogous face mask (Fig. 1) with a protective cover arranged over a light sensitive use indicator (21; Fig. 1; pg. 11, lines 10-19). Hahne further teaches a user removing the protective cover from the use indicator (21) once the face mask is placed on the user’s face for use (pg. 11, lines 10-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mask taught by Brunson, as modified in claim 8 above, to have a removable protective cover, as taught by Hahne (pg. 11, lines 10-19), arranged over the window (Reese 16, see claim 8 above) to protect the window from damage prior to the mask being worn by the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On pages 9-11 of the Remarks (filed on 5/12/2026), Applicant argues the prior art of record fails to disclose, teach, or suggest “… the combination polytetrafluoroethylene and polypropylene inner layer forming a laminate structure that resists penetration by a fluid at a pressure of at least 120 mmHg” as required by amended independent claims 1 and 8. However, the amendment to independent claims 1 and 8 necessitates new ground(s) of rejection. As such, Mathis is provided. Mathis teaches a multi-layered face mask including an intermediate layer made of at least one polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) layer and at least one polypropylene layer ([0024]-[0025]; [0028]), and wherein said face mask has a fluid penetration resistance of greater than or equal to about 120 mmHg ([0032], lines 22-23).
On pages 11-12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues the prior art of record fails to disclose, teach, or suggest “… a removable window cover arranged over a surface of said transparent window” as required by new dependent claim 19. However, said limitation of new claim 19 necessitates new ground(s) of rejection. As such, Hahne is provided. Hahne teaches a face mask with a light sensitive use indicator that is covered by a removable protective cover prior to use of the mask by the user (pg. 11, lines 10-19) to minimize false or incorrect readings by the use indicator. Hahne further teaches the removal of the protective cover from the use indicator once the user dons the face mask (pg. 11, lines 10-19). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to arrange a similar removable protective cover over a transparent window of a face mask, such that the transparent window is not damaged prior to use of the face mask by the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Quincy et al. (US 20120160247 A1): Regarding a splash resistant facemask that is resistant to fluid directed at the facemask at a pressure of 160 mmHg.
Cheng (US 20050081856 A1): Regarding a facemask with a removable outer cover.
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 ABIGAYLE DALE whose telephone number is (571)272-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:45am to 5:45pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brandy Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABIGAYLE DALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights