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 preliminary amendment filed 7/17/23. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-28 have been cancelled and claims 29-38 have been added. As such, claims 29-38 are pending in the instant application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Note: the term “comprising” (line 1) is improper language for an abstract; Examiner suggests amending to read –including--.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it references Fig. 8 at the bottom. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 29, 33, 34, 37, and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 29, the language “cutline” (line 8) is objected to for not maintaining consistency in claim terminology; Examiner suggests amending to read –3D curve cut line--.
Regarding claim 33, the language “3D curve” (line 4) is objected to for not maintaining consistency in claim terminology; Examiner suggests amending to read –3D curve cut line--.
Regarding claim 34, the language “and ask body” (line 6) is objected to for a typographical error; Examiner suggests amending to read –and mask body--.
Regarding claim 34, the language “face of a user” (line 8) is objected to as the user has already been introduced in line 7; Examiner suggests amending to read –face of the user--.
Regarding claim 37, the language “the support structure” (line 9, 12, 17-18) is objected to for not maintaining consistency in claim terminology; Examiner suggests amending to read –the bar support structure--.
Regarding claim 37, the language “the longitudinal axis” (line 10) lacks antecedent basis in the claim but does not rise to the level of indefiniteness as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an elongate bar would have a longitudinal axis; Examiner suggests amending to read –a longitudinal axis--.
Regarding claim 38, the language “face of a user” (line 4) is objected to as the user has already been introduced in line 2-3; Examiner suggests amending to read –face of the user--.
Regarding claim 38, the language “a user’s face” (line 4) is objected to as the user has already been introduced in line 2-3; Examiner suggests amending to read –the user’s face--.
Regarding claim 38, the claim is objected to as it uses a period at the end of line 14 and MPEP 608.01(m) states that the form of the claims is such that each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 29 uses the language “measuring means to trace the contours” which is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112f and which the specification discloses structure such as measuring tool in the form of bars and bar support structure (Fig. 9-12), 3D facial scanner (Fig. 13), or the use of patterned stickers along with photograph of the face with the stickers (Fig. 14).
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: “cutting machine” in claim 33. The specification discloses such a mechanical computer aided cutting machine in Fig. 13.
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.
The claim limitation “formed from the loop using the method of claim 29” (line 9) is being interpreted as a product-by-process type of limitation. See MPEP 2113.
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 29-38 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 29 recites the limitation "the contours" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the data collected" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the rear edge" in line 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 29, the language “the belt can be cut to match the curvature” (line 9, emphasis added) is indefinite as it is not known if Applicant is intending for the belt to be cut to match the curvature or if just the belt is capable of being cut to match the curvature.
The term “generally matches” in claim 34 line 4 (emphasis added) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” 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 clear as to what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘generally matches’.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the facial features" in line 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the location" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “substantially flat” in claim 36 line 2 (emphasis added) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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 clear as to what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘substantially flat’.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the edge" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “substantially closed loop” in claim 37 line 4 (emphasis added) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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 clear as to what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being a ‘substantially closed loop’.
The term “substantially parallel” in claim 37 line 10 (emphasis added) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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 clear as to what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘substantially parallel’.
Regarding claim 37, the language “the bars” (line 6, 13, 16, 17) is unclear as it is not known if this language is referring to each of the “plurality of elongate bars” set forth in line 5 or some subset of bars thereof. Examiner suggests amending to read –the plurality of elongate bars--.
Regarding claim 37, the language “the individual bars” (line 9) is unclear as it is not known if this is referring to each of the “plurality of elongate bars” set forth in line 5 or some subset of bars thereof or some other set of bars. Examiner suggests amending to read –the plurality of elongate bars--.
Regarding claim 37, the language “the bar” (line 10, 11) is unclear as it is not known if this language is referring to each of the “plurality of elongate bars” set forth in line 5 or some subset of bars thereof. Examiner suggests amending to read –each of the plurality of elongate bars--.
The term “substantially equivalent” in claim 37 line 14 (emphasis added) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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 clear as to what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘substantially equivalent’.
The term “substantially directly adjacent” in claim 37 line 18-19 (emphasis added) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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 clear as to what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘substantially directly adjacent’.
Regarding claim 37, the language “the heads” (line 18) is unclear as it is not known if this is referring to each of the heads of the plurality of elongate bars (as each of the bars includes a head per line 16-17) or a particular subset of heads. Examiner suggests amending to read –the heads of the plurality of elongate bars—for example.
Regarding claim 38, the language “the bars” (line 3, 4, 8-9, 10, 16) is unclear as it is not known if this language is referring to each of the “plurality of elongate bars” set forth in claim 37 line 5 or some subset of bars thereof. Examiner suggests amending to read –the plurality of elongate bars--.
The term “substantially fully extended” in claim 38 line 3 (emphasis added) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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 clear as to what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘substantially fully extended’.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the contours" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the required location" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the outer ends" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the outer surface" in line 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 38, the language “between steps iv) and v) of wrapping …” (line 15) is unclear as steps iv) and v) do not appear to include a step of wrapping.
Regarding claim 38, the language “a strap or similar” (line 15, emphasis added) is indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined as it is not known what qualifies, or does not qualify, as a ‘similar’ element to a strap.
Claims 30-33 and 35 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)(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.
Claim(s) 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Janbakhsh (2008/0078396).
Regarding claim 34, Janbakhsh discloses a belt for a face mask (see Fig. 1 and 4-5, face mask 14) including a loop of soft material suitable for extended skin contact and configured to connect to a mask body in use (see Fig. 1 and 4-5, belt 30 being a loop of soft material as claimed, see para. 0032 and 0047; mask body 32, see para. 0031 for example), the loop formed with a profile that generally matches that of the facial features in a location in which the face mask is to be used and the loop and mask body mutually configured to form a closed volume in front of at least a portion of the face of a user, the loop in use locating against the face of the user to form a seal (see Fig. 1 and 4-5, see para. 0026, 0031-0032, 0035-0048 which discloses providing a customized belt/loop/seal 30 for a particular patient based on 3D images of the patients facial contours). The limitation of the belt being formed using the method of claim 29 appears to be a product-by-process limitation which MPEP 2113 I states: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the instant case there does not appear to be any difference between the claimed product (customized belt/loop/seal of a face mask to match contours of a particular user) and the Janbakhsh device.
Regarding claim 35, the Janbakhsh device’s loop is formed from neoprene, silicone rubber, elastic or soft polymer (see para. 0032 and 0047).
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.
Claim(s) 29-30 and 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janbakhsh in view of Waterford et al. (2020/0114178) and Bachelder et al. (2015/0273170).
Regarding claim 29, Janbakhsh discloses a method for forming a belt made of a continuous closed loop of material for a face mask (see Fig. 1-6, face mask 14, belt 30 of continuous closed loop of material) including the steps of: using a measuring means to trace the contours of the face of a user (see Fig. 2-3 which discloses measuring means in the form of imaging device 202, see para. 0035-0046); using the data collected to create a closed 3D curve cut line on the belt and cutting the belt on its width along the cutline with the rear edge cut to match the curvature and contour of the face (see Fig. 5A which shows the uncut belt and Fig. 5B after cutting to match the contour of the user’s face from the data collected by the measuring means which using computer software and 3D imaging to create the closed 3D curve cut line, see para. 0047-0048 which discloses the cutting manufacturing process); connecting the belt to a face mask body so that the belt forms a seal for the mask (see Fig. 1 which shows the belt 30 connected to a face mask body 32 to form a seal, see para. 0031). Janbakhsh is silent as to between steps i) and ii) to further use the data collected to create a 3D model as a mathematical representation to extract the closed 3d curve from the model; however, Waterford teaches a similar customized respiratory mask which teaches this feature (see Waterford para. 0082, 0257, 0261 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 Janbakhsh method to further use the data collected to create a 3D model as a mathematical representation to extract the closed 3d curve from the model, as taught by Waterford, as this would have been obvious use of known techniques to improve similar devices/methods in the same way (use of 3D mathematical modeling of the user’s particular facial features). The modified Janbakhsh method is silent as to the belt having a minimum thickness of 3 mm and minimum width of 5 mm as claimed; however, these dimensional values would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, Bachelder discloses a similar face mask/method of making which teaches a thickness of the mask seal being in the range of 1-4 mm (see Bachelder para. 0077 and 0088). 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 Janbakhsh seal to include a minimum thickness of 3 mm, as taught by Bachelder (obvious to choose values of 3-4 mm from Bachelder’s range), and to choose a minimum width of 5 mm as this would have been obvious values to try and in order to provide a desired shape/size of the mask seal.
Regarding claim 30, the modified Janbakhsh method’s step of using measuring means to trace the contours of the face of the user is done using a software program (see Janbakhsh para. 0037, Waterford para. 0257-0261).
Regarding claim 32, the modified Janbakhsh method’s measuring means to trace contours of the face of the user uses an electronic measuring tool (see Janbakhsh Fig. 2-3, see para. 0035-0046).
Regarding claim 33, the modified Janbakhsh method’s step of cutting the belt includes placing the belt on a cutting machine and transferring data to the machine so that the machine cuts the belt in accordance with the 3D curve (see Janbakhsh Fig. 2, cutting machine 212, para. 0032, 0039; see para. 0035-0046 which discloses obtaining the 3D imaging of the facial contours of the user’s face, para. 0047-0049 which discloses the mechanical cutting of the seal/belt blank to customize it to the user’s facial contours).
Note: the following is an alternative rejection to claims 34-35 in which the method of making the belt is required.
Regarding claim 34, the modified Janbakhsh method produces a belt for a face mask (see Janbakhsh Fig. 1 and 4-5, face mask 14) including a loop of soft material suitable for extended skin contact and configured to connect to a mask body in use (see Janbakhsh Fig. 1 and 4-5, belt 30 being a loop of soft material as claimed, see para. 0032 and 0047; mask body 32, see para. 0031 for example), the loop formed with a profile that generally matches that of the facial features in a location in which the face mask is to be used and the loop and mask body mutually configured to form a closed volume in front of at least a portion of the face of a user, the loop in use locating against the face of the user to form a seal (see Janbakhsh Fig. 1 and 4-5, see para. 0026, 0031-0032, 0035-0048 which discloses providing a customized belt/loop/seal 30 for a particular patient based on 3D images of the patients facial contours). The belt made using the method of claim 29 (see above discussion of claim 29 and the cited portions of Janbakhsh, Waterford, and Bachelder).
Regarding claim 35, the product (belt) of the modified Janbakhsh method includes the loop made from neoprene, silicone rubber, elastic or soft polymer (see Janbakhsh para. 0032 and 0047).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janbakhsh, Waterford, and Bachelder as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (2014/0278320).
Regarding claim 31, the modified Janbakhsh method is silent as to the software program used to analyse the data and mathematically convert 3D curve to 2D curves; however, Wang teaches this feature (see Wang para. 0027, 0039, 0045, 0069-0070, 0078 which discloses using 3D or 2D modeling). 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 Janbakhsh method’s software program to convert 3D curves to 2D curves, as taught by Wang, as this would have been obvious use of known techniques to improve similar devices/methods in the same way.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janbakhsh, Waterford, and Bachelder as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Kwok et al. (2002/0005198).
Regarding claim 36, the product (belt+mask body forming a face mask 14) of the modified Janbakhsh method includes a body including a substantially flat front face portion with a surrounding wall extending from the edge of the front face portion (see Janbakhsh Fig. 1, body 32 which has front face that is substantially flat, i.e. face facing away from the user, and extending back forming a wall which then connects to the belt 30); and a belt as claimed in claim 34 (see above discussion of claim 34 and cited portions of Janbakhsh, Waterford, and Bachelder), but is silent as to the body and belt configured for push or friction fit engagement. However, Kwok teaches a similar face mask which includes a push or friction fit engagement between the seal and mask body (see Kwok Fig. 11 and 17 showing the face mask with mask body 46 and seal/belt 30B, Fig. 12 and 15-16 showing edge 36 which provides for the push or friction fit engagement with the mask body, see para. 0053, 0057, 0065, 0069). 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 Janbakhsh face mask body and belt to be configured for push or friction fit engagement, as taught by Kwok, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element (engagement type) for another and one would expect the modified Janbakhsh to perform equally as well.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janbakhsh in view of Kleyman et al. (2007/0056178).
Regarding claim 37, Janbakhsh discloses an apparatus for customizing the fit of a face mask (see Fig. 3C and 3D, para. 0045-0046 for example), including a bar support structure configured to form a closed or substantially closed loop (see Fig. 3C and D, 202c supporting pins 222 which can form a substantially closed loop, i.e. the parts of the pins surrounding the facial imprint of the user shown in Fig. 3D); a plurality of elongate bars structured so that the bars are held in place on the support structure adjacent to one another in the closed loop (see Fig. 3D which shows the plurality of elongate bars 222 structured to hold their places for the 3D facial imagery of the user to be captured to create the mask seal 30), the individual bars can slide within the support structure parallel to the longitudinal axis of the bars and an end protruding freely when extended (see Fig. 3C and 3D), the closed loop sized and configured to form a loop equivalent in size to the perimeter of a face mask (see Fig. 3D, the pins 222 surrounding the face imprint of the user, in particular around the mouth and nose, forming a loop equivalent in size to the perimeter of a face mask). Janbakhsh is such that each of the bars include an elongate body and a head, but is silent as to the head being wider than the body as claimed; however, Kleyman discloses a similar 3D image retainer device which includes pins having elongate body and heads wider than the body (see Kleyman Fig. 3-4, pins 10, with wider heads 12/14 than the body, see also Fig. 6). 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 Janbakhsh device’s head of the pins to be wider than the body, as taught by Kleyman, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element (pin type/shape) for another and one would expect the modified Janbakhsh device to perform equally as well.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 38 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art of record noted above and in the pertinent art section below, does not disclose, either alone or suggest in combination, a method of forming a belt for a face mask including placing an apparatus as claimed in claim 37 against a face of the user with the bars extended fully; pressing the apparatus against the face of the user causing the bars to slide inwards to form an overall shape that conforms to the contours of the user’s face around a closed loop; positioning a belt including a continuous closed loop of soft material suitable for extended skin contact within the closed loop of the bars; tracing a line around the outer ends of the bars on the outer surface of the belt; removing the belt and cutting along the traced line; connecting the belt to a face mask body so that the belt forms a seal for the mask and wherein between steps iv) and v) wrapping a strap or similar around the bars to hold these in place as set forth in claim 38.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Selvarajan et al. (2008/0060652) and Chodkowski et al. (9,802,017) disclose customized mask devices and methods thereof; Campbell et al. (2013/0216981), Wolff (2,266,457), and Fleming (4,654,989) disclose contour measuring devices using movable bars/pins.
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, 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.
/COLIN W STUART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785