DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the filing of an amendment to the claims on 4/27/2026. As per the amendment, claims 1 and 3-14 have been amended, and no claims have been added or cancelled. Thus, claims 1 and 3-14 are pending in the application.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sabolis et al. (US Pub. 2016/0001101).
Regarding claim 1, Sabolis discloses a face mask (see the mask system of Fig. 1) comprising a mask body (face seal member 106, alongside frame 102 and filter 104 in Figs. 1-6) that defines a cavity for accommodating the nose and mouth of a wearer (see Figs. 1-6 and [0050] where the face seal member 106 covers over the mouth and nose) and from which a wearer inhales respiratory gases, in use (see [0068] where the cavity of the face seal member 106 allows for the flow of gases to the user to be inhaled), and a sealing member depending from the mask body for engagement with the wearer's face (see seal contact area 114 in Fig. 6), the mask body and the sealing member comprising a nasal portion for accommodating the nose of the wearer (see narrow nasal area 136 in Figs. 1-6), a mouth portion for accommodating the mouth of the wearer (see Fig. 6 the portion of face seal member 106 and seal contact area 114 that is below the nasal area 136 and covers around the mouth to define the rest of cavity 128), and cheek portions configured to extend laterally across the wearer's cheeks between the upper edges of the malar bones and the lower edge of the mandible of the wearer (see Figs. 1-6 where frame 102 and filter 104 form laterally extending side portions that extend over the cheeks, between the malar bones and mandible of the wearer).
Regarding claim 3, Sabolis discloses wherein the face mask is configured to extend laterally across the wearer's cheeks such that an edge of the mask is situated, in use, within 5cm, or within 4 cm, or within 3cm, or within 2cm of the wearer's ears (it is noted that this limitation is dependent on the head shape and size of the individual using the mask, and Figs. 1-2 show an extension of the frame 102 that is able to be within at least 5cm of the ear of certain patients, such as neonates).
Regarding claim 4, Sabolis discloses wherein the distance between a first side edge of the mask body and an opposing side edge of the mask body, measured along the surface of the mask body (see Figs. 1-6 where the frame 102 has two lateral side edges, one left and one right, which are oppositely opposed from one another and at some distance), is between 1.2 and 2 times larger than the distance between the top edge of the mask body in the nasal portion and the bottom edge of the mask body in the chin portion, measured along the surface of the mask body (see Figs. 1-6 where the distance between the two lateral sides is greater than the distance between the upper (nasal) and lower (chin) edges. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the breadth of the range “1.2 to 2 times” as well as the facial anatomy of a user and how a mask would be made to fit thereon. Hence, it is clear that the distance between the lateral sides is greater than the nasal to chin distance (greater than 1 times larger), and is likewise clearly constrained by the anatomy and shape of the face to not be excessively larger (clearly less than 3 times larger). As the ranges have significant overlap, and there does not appear to be any criticality to the claimed range, Sabolis is understood to disclose a ratio that is within that range or so close to the range so as to have no discernable difference in structure or function).
Regarding claim 5, Sabolis discloses wherein the mask is configured to substantially cover the wearer's cheeks (see Figs. 1-6 where the lateral extensions of frame 102 and filter 104 covers across at least a substantial portion of the cheeks).
Regarding claim 6, Sabolis discloses wherein the portions of the mask body which extend across the wearer's cheeks form a shallower cavity between the mask body and the wearer's face than the portion of the mask body which extends over the wearer's nose and mouth (see Figs. 1-6 where the frame 102 and filter 104 have a slight curve to them, forming a shallow cavity between them and the face of the user; and where the cavity formed by face seal member 106 fits around the mouth and nose with a deeper cavity and more pronounced curvature such that the cavity is less shallow).
Regarding claim 7, Sabolis discloses wherein the cheek portions each have a first edge that extends from a left-side or right-side edge of the nasal portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below, a first edge extending from sides of a nasal portion), and is accommodated over the malar bone of the wearer, and a second edge that extends from a left- or right-side edge of the mouth portion (see annotated Fig. 1 below, where the extension of the first edge passes over at least some part of the malar bone, depending on the size and shape of the user’s head), such that the second edge of the cheek portion is accommodated above the lower edge of the mandible of the wearer (see annotated Fig. 1 below, the second edge above a lower edge of the mandible), wherein the angle between tangent lines to the first and second edges of each cheek portion decreases with increasing lateral position (see annotated Fig. 1 below where the first edge tapers from the center (about the nose) to a flatter shape as it extends laterally outward, such that its tangent decreases as it extends towards the first and second side edges).
PNG
media_image1.png
358
439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Sabolis discloses wherein the cheek portions each further comprise a side edge which extends between a distal end of the first edge and a distal end of the second edge (see above annotated Fig. 1, the side edges).
Regarding claim 9, Sabolis discloses where the side edge comprises a substantially linear edge (see above annotated Fig. 1, the side edges being at least substantially linear).
Regarding claim 10, Sabolis discloses wherein the angle between the side edge and the first edge is between 70 and 110 degrees (see above annotated Fig. 1, where the angle from the first edge to side edge is approximately 90 degrees, such that it is clearly within the 70-110 degree range).
Regarding claim 11, Sabolis discloses wherein the first edge is concave in shape (see above annotated Fig. 1, where the curvature of the first edge is concave about the nose) .
Regarding claim 12, Sabolis discloses wherein the face mask is a filter mask (see abstract, and filter 104 in Figs. 1-6), and the mask body is defined by the support frame and the filter (see Figs. 1-6 where the body of the mask includes and is thus defined at least in part by frame 102 and filter 104).
Regarding claim 14, Sabolis discloses wherein the support frame and the filter are configured to extend laterally across the wearer's cheeks in the cheek portions of the mask body (see figs. 1-6 where frame 102 and filter 104 extend in the lateral direction across cheeks of the wearer, the cheek portions made of the frame and filter such that they are in the cheek portions).
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabolis as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Davidson et al. (US Pat. 8,869,797).
Regarding claim 13, Sabolis discloses the sealing member and the support frame.
Sabolis lacks a detailed description of wherein the sealing member extends about the periphery of the support frame.
However, Davidson teaches a worn respiratory mask with a frame and sealing member, where a support frame member (see Fig. 7-1 cushion clip 70) has the sealing member extending about its periphery (see Fig. 7-1 where cushion 95 extends about the peripheral edges of cushion clip 70 when joined together).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mask body of Sabolis to have the frame support member clip connected to a peripherally located sealing cushion as taught by Davidson, as it would provide a rigid support for the sealing cushion member, while also allowing for easy removal and replacement of the sealing cushion from the mask to allow for easier reuse of the mask (Davidson; see Col. 6 line 46 to Col. 7 line 23).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Sabolis does not have where a portion of the sealing member is configured to extend laterally across the wearer’s cheeks between the upper edges of the malar bones and the lower edge of the mandible of the wearer, as the sealing section is about the nose. The argument is not well-taken. First, it is noted that the claim requires “the mask body and the sealing member comprising … cheek portions configured to extend laterally across the wearer’s cheeks” and thus it is the mask body and sealing member together that perform this extension. Hence, Sabolis does have where the combined system of the mask and sealing member do extend some amount over the cheeks. However, even without this interpretation, Sabolis does have the that the sealing member contacts the cheeks (see [0022] and [0050]). This contact occurs between a plane defining the malar bones, and a plane defining the mandible. As such, the sealing portion has some amount of lateral extension, is understood to touch the cheeks, and exists between planes defining the malar bones and mandible.
Thus, for the reasons above, the rejection holds.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D ZIEGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-3349. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571)272-5139. 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.
/MATTHEW D ZIEGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights