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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments made to claims 2 and 7 in the response filed on 4/6/2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are still pending in the application and Claims 1-7 and 18-20 are examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 4/6/2026, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see page 8, filed 4/6/2026, with respect to the specification amendments have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 4/6/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Please see argument below.
Applicant argues “Claim 1 recites in part that ‘the first interface is configured to attach to skin of a patient such that the first magnet does not contact the skin.’ Independent Claim 18, although of varying scope, recites similar elements. In addressing this claim element, the Office Action asserts that figure 2 of Alaguero discloses such elements and also that Moustafa discloses such elements...Similarly, Moustafa discloses only that there is ‘an adhesive layer that adheres the magnets to the patients skin.’ (Abstract.) However, the description and figures of Moustafa do not address whether the magnet contacts the user's skin. Thus, the references are silent with respect to ‘the first interface is configured to attach to skin of a patient such that the first magnet does not contact the skin,’ as claimed. The Office Action supports the rejection by asserting that ‘because of the adhesive, the first magnet [4] does not contact the skin.’ The present rejection is thus an inherency rejection, in which the Examiner is asserting that a limitation not expressly found in prior art is nonetheless necessarily present (i.e., inherent) in that art. However, with respect to inherency rejections, MPEP 2112 indicates that ‘[t]he fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic.’ (Emphasis in original). MPEP 2112 goes on to require that ‘[i]n relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art.’ (Underlining in original; emphasis added).’ In the present case, the Office Action has not provided any basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support that the claim element at issue necessarily flows from the teachings of the prior art. Rather, the Office Action only asserts that ‘because of the adhesive, the first magnet [4] does not contact the skin.’ However, such an assertion does not necessarily flow from the teachings of the prior art. It is apparent from their silence on the issue that neither Alaguero nor Moustafa was concerned with whether the magnet touches the user's skin. It is also reasonable to assume that the prior art magnets could at least partially touch the skin of the user due to the adhesive only covering a portion of the skin-facing side of the magnet. The prior art and the Office Action fail to provide any indication that the ‘magnet does not contact the skin’ claim element necessarily flows from the teachings of the prior art, as required by the MPEP”; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. In figures 1a/1b and 2a of Moustafa, it can be seen that the adhesive layers (20a/20b) are on the contact surface of the magnets (21a/21b), which contacts the user’s skin (also disclosed in paragraph 0038/0041-0042). The magnets (14a/14b) themselves do not directly contact the skin because there is an adhesive layer (20a/20b) that is on the contact surface of the magnets (21a/21b) that adheres the magnets (14a/14b) to the user’s skin. The term “contact” is defined as “A coming together or touching, as of objects or surfaces” by Contact - definition of contact by The Free Dictionary”. Furthermore, in Moustafa, there is no evidence or disclosure of how the magnets (14a/14b) could partially touch the skin of the user due to the adhesive (20a/20b) only covering a portion of the skin-facing side of the magnet; it disclosed the contact surface (21a/21b, surface that makes contact with the skin) having an adhesive bottom layer (20a/20b), as seen in figure 1a/1b (also disclosed in paragraph 0038/0041-0042). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 2 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 4 and 6 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. For claim 19, see argument above in regard to Moustafa.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 7 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.
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)(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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hasegawa (US 20210322705 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hasegawa discloses a treatment system (figure 2A, face covering: paragraph 0042) comprising: a first interface (208/210 – figure 2C, adhesive magnets [208] and dual-sided adhesives [210]: paragraph 0044) having a first side that includes an adhesive (210 – figure 2C, a dual-sided adhesives in which the first side attaches to the user’s face [102 – figure 2C]: paragraph 0044-0045) and a second side that includes a first magnet (208 – figure 2C, adhesive magnets that attaches to the adhesive [210] on the second side: paragraph 0044-0045), wherein the first interface (208/210) is configured to attach to skin of a patient such that the first magnet (208) does not contact the skin (figure 2C, the first magnet [208] is secured/attached to the user’s face [102] via the adhesive [210]; the adhesive [210] is between the first magnet [208] and the user’s face [102]. Additionally, as seen figure 2C, the first magnet [208] contacts the adhesive [210] and not the user’s face [102]): paragraph 0044-0045); and a second interface that includes a medical device (204 – figure 2A/figure 2B, a face covering: paragraph 0042) and a second magnet (206 – figure 2B, magnets: paragraph 0042-0043) mounted to the medical device (204) (figure 2B, the magnets [206] are embedded into the one or more machine-washable layers of clot of the medical device [204]: paragraph 0042/0043), wherein the second magnet (206) is configured to magnetically bind to the first magnet (208) such that the medical device (204) is secured to the patient (figure 2A, the first magnet [208] and second magnet [206] secures the medical device [204] on the user’s face via magnetic attraction: paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 2, Hasegawa discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Hasegawa further discloses wherein the medical device (204) comprises a breathing mask that provides positive pressure ventilation or oxygen therapy (the medical device can be a respirator mask and/or ventilator mask that is capable of providing positive pressure ventilation or oxygen therapy [see examiner further notes below]: paragraph 0071).
Examiner further notes: A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Hasegawa discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Hasegawa further discloses wherein the second magnet (206) is embedded within the medical device (204) (the second magnet [206] can be embedded into the one or more machine-washable layers of the medical device [204]: paragraph 0042).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moustafa (US 20140214078 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Moustafa discloses a treatment system (10 – figure 1A, a wound closure assembly: paragraph 0036) comprising: a first interface (B – see annotated figure 1, a first interface) that includes a first adhesive (20a – see annotated figure 1, an adhesive bottom layer: paragraph 0038) and a first magnet (14a – see annotated figure 1, a magnet: paragraph 0038) attached to the first adhesive (20a) (the first magnet [14a] is attached to the first adhesive [20a]: paragraph 0038), wherein the first interface (B) is configured to attach to skin of a patient on a first side of a skin wound such that the first magnet (14a) does not contact the skin (see annotated figure 1, the first interface [B] is attached to the skin via the first adhesive [20a] on the first side of the skin wound [left side in annotated figure]; therefore, the first magnet [14a] does not contact the skin: paragraph 0038); and a second interface (C– see annotated figure 1, a second interface) that includes a second adhesive (20b – see annotated figure 1, an adhesive bottom layer: paragraph 0038) and a second magnet (14b – see annotated figure 1, a magnet: paragraph 0038) attached to the second adhesive (20b) (the second magnet [14b] is attached to the second adhesive [20b]: paragraph 0038), wherein the second interface (C) is configured to attach to the skin of the patient on a second side of the skin wound (see annotated figure 1, the second interface [C] is attached to the skin via the second adhesive [20b] on the second side of the skin wound [right side of the annotated figure]: paragraph 0038), and wherein the second magnet (14b) is configured to attach to the first magnet (14a) such that the skin wound is closed (figure 3, the purpose of the first [14a] and second magnet [14b] is to draw the edges of a wound close together: abstract/paragraph 0038/0044).
PNG
media_image1.png
327
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1: wound closing assembly of Moustafa
Regarding claim 20, Moustafa discloses the invention as discussed in claim 18. Moustafa further discloses wherein the first magnet (14a) comprises a first magnetic strip (figure 4, the first magnet [14a] comprises a first magnetic strip) that conforms to the first side of the skin wound (figure 4, the first magnetic strip is on the left side of the wound in the figure), and wherein the second magnet (14b) comprises a second magnetic strip (figure 4, the second magnet [14b] comprises a second magnetic strip) of a same size and shape as the first magnetic strip (figure 4, the first and second magnetic strip are the same size and shape: paragraph 0044).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US 20210322705 A1) in view of Moustafa (US 20180168653 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Hasegawa discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Hasegawa fails to disclose wherein the first magnet comprises a first magnetic strip that conforms to a face of the patient, and wherein the second magnet comprises a second magnetic strip of a same size and shape as the first magnetic strip.
Moustafa teaches wherein an analogous first magnet (12a – figure 1, a first magnet: paragraph 0039) comprises a first magnetic strip that conforms to a face of the patient (the first magnet [12a] is a flexible elongated strip that is capable of flexing along the longitudinal axis: paragraph 0039), and wherein an analogous second magnet (12b – figure 1, a second magnet: paragraph 0039) comprises a second magnetic strip (the second magnet [12b] is a flexible elongated strip that is capable of flexing along the longitudinal axis: paragraph 0039) of a same size and shape as the first magnetic strip (figure 1, the first [12a] and second magnet [12b] can be the same in size and shape [see paragraph 0047-0048]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second magnet of Hasegawa to be a first magnetic strip and second magnetic strip that are the same size and shape as taught by Moustafa in order to provide a treatment system that has an improved first and second magnet to maximize the attractive force between the two magnets (abstract/paragraph 0013-0014, Moustafa).
Regarding claim 6, Hasegawa discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Hasegawa further discloses the first magnet (208) comprises neodymium (the first magnet [208] can be neodymium magnets: paragraph 0046).
However, Hasegawa fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first magnet comprises a strip.
Moustafa teaches wherein an analogous first magnet (12a – figure 1, a first magnet: paragraph 0039) comprises a strip (the first magnet [12a] is a flexible elongated strip that is capable of flexing along the longitudinal axis: paragraph 0039).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first magnet of Hasegawa to be a strip as taught by Moustafa in order to provide a treatment system that has an improved first magnet to better conform with the patient’s skin (paragraph 0009/0039, Moustafa).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US 20210322705 A1) in view of Freeman (US 5681579 A).
Regarding claim 5, Hasegawa discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Hasegawa fails to disclose wherein the adhesive comprises a hydrocolloid dressing.
Freeman teaches wherein an analogous adhesive (15 – figure 2, an adhesive layer on the polymeric support layer [12]: column 5, lines 66-67/column 6, lines 1-4) comprises a hydrocolloid dressing (the adhesive [15] comprises the hydrocolloid-containing polymeric support layer [12]: abstract/column 3, lines 19-22/column 5, lines 1-29).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the adhesive of Hasegawa with a hydrocolloid dressing as taught by Freeman in order to provide a treatment system that has an improved adhesive to provide pathways for the rapid absorption and uptake of body fluids to remove moisture from where the medical device is attached to on the user’s face (column 5, lines 67 & column 6, lines 1-3).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US 20210322705 A1) in view of Ohtsuki (JP 3186497 U).
Regarding claim 7, Hasegawa discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Hasegawa fails to disclose wherein the second side of the first interface also includes the adhesive such that the first magnet is completely embedded within the adhesive.
Ohtsuki teaches wherein an analogous second side of the first interface (D – see annotated figure 2, a second side of the first interface) also includes an analogous adhesive (10 – see annotated figure 2, sheet-like base material made of silicone rubber that is flexible and adhesive: paragraph 0009/0017-0018) such that an analogous first magnet (20 – see annotated figure 2, a plurality of button-shaped or granular permanent magnets: paragraph 0017) is completely embedded within an analogous adhesive (10) (see annotated figure 2, the magnet [20] is completely embedded into the adhesive [10]: paragraph 0017).
PNG
media_image2.png
139
403
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2: magnets embedded within the adhesive
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positioning of the first magnet of Hasegawa such that the first magnet is completely embedded into the adhesive on the second side of the first interface as taught by Ohtsuki in order to provide an improved treatment system that prevents magnets from falling out and have low manufacturing costs (paragraph 0006/0008, Ohtsuki).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moustafa (US 20140214078 A1) in view of Ohtsuki (JP 3186497 U).
Regarding claim 19, Moustafa discloses the invention as discussed in claim 18. Moustafa further discloses the first magnet (14a), the first adhesive (20a), the second magnet (14b), and the second adhesive (20b).
However, Moustafa fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first magnet is embedded within the first adhesive and the second magnet is embedded within the second adhesive.
Kurokawa teaches wherein an analogous magnet (20 – see annotated figure 2, a plurality of button-shaped or granular permanent magnets: paragraph 0017) is embedded within an analogous adhesive (10 – see annotated figure 2, sheet-like base material made of silicone rubber that is flexible and adhesive: paragraph 0009/0017-0018) (see annotated figure 2, the magnets [20] is completely embedded into the adhesive [10]: paragraph 0017).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positioning of the first and second magnets of Moustafa such that they are embedded in the first and second adhesive, respectively, as taught by Ohtsuki in order to provide an improved treatment system that prevents magnets from falling out and have low manufacturing costs (paragraph 0006/0008, Ohtsuki).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JUN-WAI MOK whose telephone number is (703)756-4605. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4pm.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at (571) 270-3076. 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.
/ANDREW JUN-WAI MOK/Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/KARI K RODRIQUEZ/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
