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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 02/24/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 04/20/2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-3, 5 and 7 have been amended. As such, claims 1-15 are pending in the instant application.
Applicant has amended the drawings to address a minor informality; the objection to the drawings regarding the duplicated drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the specification to address a minor informality; the objection to the drawings regarding the inlet apertures has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 3 and 5 to address a minor informality; the objection to the claims has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10 of Remarks, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15 under 35 USC 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Martin (US 20090078261 A1) in view of Waterford (US 20200114178 A1).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, line 1, recites “…as claimed in Claim 11, wherein the shield is…” but should recite “…as claimed in Claim13, wherein the shield is…” due to antecedent basis as claim 11 does not recite a shield.
Claim 15 recites “…as claimed in Claim 11, wherein one or more inlet apertures, through which air may be drawn by a wearer inhaling, is defined between an edge of the shield and the support frame” but should recite “…as claimed in Claim 13, wherein one or more inlet apertures, through which air may be drawn by a wearer inhaling, is defined between an edge of the shield and a rim of the support frame” due to antecedent basis as claim 11 does not recite a shield and for clarity purposes as the shield is part of the support frame as seen on page 4, lines 16-22 and page 5, lines 18-24
Appropriate correction is required.
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 20090078261 A1) in view of Waterford (US 20200114178 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Martin teaches a method of manufacturing a filter mask (respirator 10, see Fig. 1 and [0060]-[0061]), the filter mask comprising a support frame (support structure 16, see Figs. 1 and 2a-2b), a filter (filtering structure 18, see Figs. 1, 3 and 4) and a sealing member (Martin teaches the wearer’s face will contact an inner surface of additional face seal material as seen in [0057], therefore the face seal material comprises a sealing member), wherein the method comprises:
locating the filter and the support frame in a second mould (Martin teaches the support structure 16 and the filtering structure 18 to be secured together by over molding as seen in [0060]. Martin further teaches support structure 16 to be molded by injection molding as seen in [0061]).
But does not teach injecting a polymeric material into the second mould to form the sealing member,
wherein the sealing member is brought into engagement with the filter and the support frame, during injection moulding of the sealing member, in a manner that fixes the sealing member to the support frame and the filter, and in a manner that fixes the relative positions of the filter and the support frame.
However, Waterford teaches injecting a polymeric material into the mould to form the sealing member (facial skirt 406, see Fig. 29A and [0263] and [0266]);
wherein the sealing member is brought into engagement with the filter and the support frame (front section 402 and frame 404, see Fig. 29A), during injection moulding of the sealing member (Waterford teaches a filter material positioned between frame 404 and front section 402 before snapping or inserting the frame into the front section as seen in [0270] (this is similar to page 28, lines 6-12 of applicant’s specification, wherein the filter cartridge can be connected to the support frame by one or more snap-fit connecters). Waterford further teaches the facial skirt is over-molded (page 2, lines 20-24, of applicant’s specification discusses overmoulding as injection molding) onto the assembled front section and filter material compressed between the frame that seals together the facemask as seen in [0062] and [0075]).
Martin teaches a face seal material (see [0057]) and combining support structure 16 and filtering structure 18 by using overmolding as seen in [0060]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method taught by Martin to overmold the sealing member over the filter and support frame as taught by Waterford as a method known within the art to combine parts of the mask together. Martin in view of Waterford teaches wherein the sealing member is brought into engagement with the filter and the support frame, during injection moulding of the sealing member, in a manner that fixes the sealing member to the support frame and the filter, and in a manner that fixes the relative positions of the filter and the support frame (Martin in view of Waterford teaches overmolding the face seal material over support structure 16 and filtering structure 18. Therefore, the face seal material is bought into engagement with support structure 16 and filtering structure 18, in a manner that fixes the face seal material to support structure 16 and filtering structure 18 and fixes the relative positions of the support structure 16 and filtering structure 18).
Regarding claim 2, Martin in view of Waterford teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the support frame is made in a preceding step of the method by injection moulding (Martin teaches support structure 16 to be molded by injection molding as seen in [0061]), and the method further comprises a step of transferring the support frame from a first mould in which the support frame is injection moulded to the second mould in which the sealing member is injection moulded (Martin in view of Waterford teaches transferring the support structure 16 made from injection molding into another mold to be overmolded by the face seal material (as taught by Waterford)).
Regarding claim 3, Martin in view of Waterford teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches wherein when the filter is located into the second mould with the support frame, the support frame extends about the periphery of the filter (Martin teaches support structure 16 to extend about the periphery of filtering structure 18 as seen in Fig. 1 and Martin in view of Waterford teaches support structure 16 and filtering structure 18 to be overmolded together (taught by Waterford)).
Regarding claim 4, Martin in view of Waterford teaches the method of Claim 1, and Martin further teaches wherein the support frame comprises a rim (flange members 35a and 35b and transversely-extending members 49 and 50, see Figs. 2a-2b) that defines an aperture through which inhaled and/or exhaled gases flow, in use (flange members 35a and 35b and transversely-extending members 49 and 50 define an aperture as seen in Figs. 1 and 2a-2b, wherein gas travels between the aperture through filtering structure 18 to be filtered as seen in [0003] and [0069]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 6, Martin in view of Waterford teaches the method of Claim 1, and Martin further teaches wherein the support frame comprises one or more ribs (transversely-extending members 26, 28, 46, 48, 49 and 50, see Figs. 2a-2b), which extend across a surface of the filter, providing support to the filter and rigidity to the mask (transversely-extending members 26, 28, 46, 48, 49 and 50 extend across a surface of the filtering structure as seen in Figs. 2a-2b, wherein the transversely-extending members aids in providing rigidity to respirator 10 as seen in [0059] and [0068]).
Regarding claim 7, Martin in view of Waterford teaches the method of Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the filter that is located in the second mould in the method of manufacture comprises a filter substrate only (Martin teaches filtering structure 18 may simply comprise of a filtration layer or a combination of filtration layers as seen in [0064]).
Regarding claim 8, Martin in view of Waterford teaches the method of Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the support frame and the filter are not fixed or bonded together prior to injection moulding of the sealing member (Martin in view of Waterford teaches filtering structure 18 and support structure 16 to not be fixed or bonded together prior to the overmolding of the face seal material as seen in [0060] of Martin).
Regarding claim 9, Martin in view of Waterford teaches the method of Claim 1, and further teaches wherein, during injection moulding of the sealing member, a portion of the sealing member adheres aligned edges of the filter and the support frame (Marin teaches the peripheral edge of the filtering structure 18 to extend slightly beyond the perimeter 20 of the support structure for a comfortable fit as seen in [0057]. Therefore, Martin in view of Waterford teaches overmolding the face seal material over support structure 16 and filtering structure 18 such that, the face seal material adheres edges of the filter and the support frame as it extends beyond the perimeter/edge).
Regarding claim 10, Martin in view of Waterford teaches a filter mask manufactured according to the method as claimed in Claim 1 (Martin in view of Waterford teaches the respiratory mask 10 of Martin as seen in claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Martin teaches a filter mask (respirator 10, see Fig. 1 and [0060]-[0061]) comprising a support frame (support structure 16, see Figs. 1 and 2a-2b), a filter (filtering structure 18, see Figs. 1, 3 and 4) and a sealing member (Martin teaches the wearer’s face will contact an inner surface of additional face seal material as seen in [0057], therefore the face seal material comprises a sealing member)
But does not teach wherein the sealing member is fixed to the support frame and the filter, and fixes the relative positions of the filter and the support frame.
However, Waterford teaches a filter material positioned between frame 404 and front section 402 (both taken as support frame) before snapping or inserting the frame into the front section as seen in [0270] (this is similar to page 28, lines 6-12 of applicant’s specification, wherein the filter cartridge can be connected to the support frame by one or more snap-fit connecters). Waterford further teaches the facial skirt is over-molded (page 2, lines 20-24, of applicant’s specification discusses overmoulding as injection molding) onto the assembled front section and filter material compressed between the frame that seals together the facemask as seen in [0062] and [0075].
Martin teaches a face seal material (see [0057]) and combining support structure 16 and filtering structure 18 by using overmolding as seen in [0060]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method taught by Martin to overmold the sealing member over the filter and support frame as taught by Waterford as a method known within the art to combine parts of the mask together. Martin in view of Waterford teaches wherein the sealing member is fixed to the support frame and the filter, and fixes the relative positions of the filter and the support frame. (Martin in view of Waterford teaches overmolding the face seal material over support structure 16 and filtering structure 18. Therefore, the face seal material is bought into engagement with support structure 16 and filtering structure 18, in a manner that fixes the face seal material to support structure 16 and filtering structure 18 and fixes the relative positions of the support structure 16 and filtering structure 18).
Regarding claim 12, Martin in view of Waterford teaches the mask of claim 11, and Martin further teaches wherein the support frame and the filter together define a mask body (mask body 12 comprises of support structure 16 and filtering structure 18 as seen in Fig. 1 and [0057]), which forms a cavity for the accommodation of the wearer's mouth and nose (Martin teaches a respiratory 10 including a mask body 12 that is worn over the nose and mouth of a person as seen in Fig. 1 and [0057], and therefore mask body 12 forms a cavity to accommodate for the wearer’s mouth and nose).
Regarding claim 13, Martin in view of Waterford teaches the mask of claim 11, and Martin further teaches wherein an external face of the support frame comprises a shield (frame 36, see Fig. 1), which extends over at least part of a surface of the filter (frame 36 extends over part of filtering structure 18 as seen in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Martin in view of Waterford teaches the mask of claim 11, and further teaches wherein the shield is separated from the filter, such that air may flow between the shield and the filter before the air is drawn through the filter by the wearer during inhalation (frame 36 is part of support structure 16 such that the filtering structure 18 and support structure 16 may be attached at on multiple points as seen in [0060] of Martin. Martin in view of Waterford teaches overmolding the face seal material over support structure 16 and filtering structure 18 (taught by Waterford), and therefore frame 36 should be separate from filtering structure 18. Furthermore, filtering structure 18 teaches multiple pleats that allow the filtering structure to expand as seen in [0063]. As such, air flows between frame 36 and filtering structure 18 (as they are not bonded together) before it is drawn through filtering structure 18).
Regarding claim 15, Martin in view of Waterford teaches the mask of claim 11, and Martin further teaches wherein one or more inlet apertures, through which air may be drawn by a wearer inhaling, is defined between an edge of the shield and the support frame (see claim objection above; Martin teaches one or more inlet apertures between frame 36 and flange members 35a and 35b and transversely-extending members 49 and 50 (taken as the rim of the support frame) as seen in Figs. 1 and 2a-2b).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 20090078261 A1) in view of Waterford (US 20200114178 A1), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Han (US 20190009114 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Martin in view of Waterford teaches the method of Claim 4, and further teaches wherein the support frame comprises a shoulder (transversely-extending members 26, see Figs. 2a-2b) extending from an inner edge of the rim (transversely-extending members 26 extends from an inner edge of the flange members 35a and 35b and transversely-extending members 49 and 50 as seen in Figs. 2a-2b), providing a surface on which the filter can be located (transversely-extending members 26 provides a surface on which filtering structure 18 can be located as filtering structure 18 rests on transversely-extending members 26 as seen in Figs. 2a-2b)
But does not teach facilitating retention of the filter in the second mould prior to injection moulding of the sealing member.
However, Han teaches a filter mounting portion 141 and filter support 143 that allows filter part 140 to be attached as seen in Fig. 5 and [0134]-[0135] (similar to the retention tabs 19 taught by applicant’ specification on page 31, lines 12-16).
Martin in view of Waterford teaches overmolding the face seal material over support structure 16 and filtering structure 18. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method taught by Martin in view of Waterford to include the filter mounting portion and filter support as taught by Han to hold the filter in place to not allow the filter from moving (see [0134] - [0135]). This will allow for ease of overmolding as the filter is already in place within the support frame.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tina Zhang whose telephone number is (571)272-6956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/TINA ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights