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 10/31/23. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-6 have been amended, claims 7-9 have been added, and no claims have been cancelled. As such, claims 1-9 are pending in the instant application. 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. The language “purified air supply means for supplying purified air” in claim 1 line 33 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Corresponding structure for this limitation is a filter per specification pg. 10 ln. 14. The claim limitation “the outlet is formed vertically toward the rear direction” (claim 6 line 1-2) is interpreted in light of the disclosure to mean that the outlet is formed towards the rear of the mask body (in an anterior-posterior anatomical direction when the mask is worn by the user) and is also ‘formed vertically’ in that it has a dimension in the vertical direction (superior-inferior anatomical direction when the mask is worn by the user). This is shown in Fig. 4 for example. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-9 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 1 recites the limitation " the inside " in line 31 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the transverse direction" in line 39. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the middle" in line 43. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Regarding claim 4, the language “the outlet is positioned … at opposite positions to the inlet (line 1-2, emphasis added) is unclear as the language that the outlet is at opposite positions, plural, appears to imply that there are plural outlets at plural opposite positions with respect to the inlet which is unclear in light of the disclosure which does not appear to support such a configuration. This language is being interpreted to set forth that the outlet is at least a singular outlet and located at a position opposite of the inlet. Claims 2-3, 5, and 7-9 are rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability , 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Regarding claim 1, the language “a mask body worn on a user’s face to cover …” (line 29) appears to claim the user, a human organism, which is non-statutory subject matter. In order for the mask body to be worn on a user’s face to cover … the user must be part of the claimed invention. Examiner suggests amending to read –a mask body configured to be worn on a user’s face to cover …-- for example. Regarding claim 1, the language “a space is formed between the inside of the mask body and the user’s face …” (line 30-31) appears to claim the user, a human organism, which is non-statutory subject matter. In order for the space to exist between the mask body and the user’s face, the user must be part of the claimed invention. Examiner suggests amending to read –a space is configured to be formed between an inside of the mask body and the user’s face …--. Regarding claim 1, the language “outlet positioned in the mask body at a place that crosses over the user’s respiratory system …” (line 38-39) appears to claim the user, a human organism, which is non-statutory subject matter. In order for the outlet to be positioned at a place that crosses over the user’s respiratory system face from the inlet, the user must be part of the claimed invention. Examiner suggests amending to read –outlet configured to be positioned in the mask body at a place that crosses over the users respiratory system …--. Regarding claim 1, the language “the user’s respiratory system is positioned in the middle of the forced flow” (line 43) appears to claim the user, a human organism, which is non-statutory subject matter. In order for the user’s respiratory system to be positioned in the middle of the forced flow, the user must be part of the claimed invention. Examiner suggests amending to read –the user’s respiratory system is configured to be positioned in a middle of the forced flow--. Regarding claim 5, the language “the outlet is formed … with respect to the transverse direction that crosses the face of the user wearing the mask body” (line 1-3) appears to claim the user, a human organism, which is non-statutory subject matter. In order for the outlet to be formed as such with respect to the user, the user must be present in the claimed invention. Examiner suggests amending to read –the outlet is configured to be formed … with respect to the transverse direction that crosses the face of the user when the user is wearing the mask body--. Regarding claim 6, the language “the outlet is formed … with respect to the transverse direction that crosses the face of the user wearing the mask body …” (line 1-5) appears to claim the user, a human organism, which is non-statutory subject matter. In order for the outlet to be formed as claimed with respect to the user/user’s face, the user must be part of the claimed invention. Examiner suggests amending to read –the outlet is configured to be formed … with respect to the transverse direction that crosses the face of the user when the user is wearing the mask body …--. Regarding claim 8, the language “the inlet forms a flow field in the direction crossing the user’s face” (line 1-2) appears to claim the user, a human organism, which is non-statutory subject matter. In order for the inlet to be formed as claimed with respect to the user/user’s face, the user must be present in the claimed invention. Examiner suggests amending to read –the inlet is configured to form a flow field in the direction crossing the user’s face--. Claims 2-4, 7, and 9 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)(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) 1, 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin (2021/0379421) . Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a facial mask (see Fig. 1-8, abstract for example) which includes a mask body worn on a user’s face to cover the user’s face including the respiratory system from one cheek to the other cheek (see Fig. 1, 6, 7 A , and 8, mask body 100, see para. 0022), wherein a space is formed between the inside of the mask body and the user’s face for storing air for the user’s respiration (see Fig. 1, 7 A , and 8, mask body 100, see para. 0022 and abstract, provided between the user’s face is a space for storing air for respiration as the device is an air sterilization mask for a user to breath clean air), a purified air supply means for supplying purified air to the space of the mask body (see Fig. 1, purified air supply means 200 on the right hand side of this figure, see para. 0021, 0024, and 0031 ; this means 200 includes fan 220 and filter 2174 to provide purified air along with other sterilization means disclosed ) , wherein an inlet through which the purified air is supplied into the space and an outlet through which the purified air supplied is discharged from the space to surroundings are formed in the mask body (see Fig. 1, inlet on mask body 212 on the right side of this figure and outlet 211 on mask body on left side of this figure, see also Figs. 2-5 showing openings/ports in elements 200 which provide airflow), the outlet configured to be positioned in the mask body at a place that crosses over the user’s respiratory system face from the inlet along the transverse direction that crosses the user’s face (see Fig. 1, 7A, and 8 the user’s face is located between the inlet and outlet along a transverse direction that crosses the users face as shown), when the user wears the mask body and the purified air operates, the purified air flows from the inlet to the outlet and the flow forms a forced flow by pressure supplied by the purified air supply means into the space through the inlet (see Fig. 1 and para. 0024, fan units 220 providing the forced flow by pressure from the inlet to the outlet), and the user’s respiratory system is positioned in the middle of the forced flow so that when the user wears the mask body the forced flowing air is inhaled when the user inhales and exhaled breath discharged when the user exhales along the forced flow (see Fig. 1 and para. 0024 and 0026 , forced air flow by the fans 220 providing the forced flowing air , inhalation/exhalation flow shown by the arrows in Fig. 1 ). Regarding claim 3, the Lin device is such that the air supply means includes an air purification filter and a blowing part that draws air from outside through the air purification filter and blows the air to the space (see Fig. 1 and 3, filter 2174, blowing part 220, see para. 0024 and 0031-0032). Regarding claim 8, the Lin device is such that the inlet forms a flow field in the direction crossing the user’s face and the air supplied to the space through the inlet flows along the transverse direction crossing the user’s face (see Fig. 1 and 3, fan units 220 in 200 providing the flow field directed across the user’s face from inlet to outlet, see para. 0024, 0032). Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (2023/0405369) . Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses a facial mask (see Fig. 1-2 and abstract for example) which includes a mask body worn on a user’s face to cover the user’s face including the respiratory system from one cheek to the other cheek (see Fig. 1, mask body 102, see para. 0043 ), wherein a space is formed between the inside of the mask body and the user’s face for storing air for the user’s respiration (see Fig. 2 , space defined by inner surface 105 of mask body , see para. 0043 ), a purified air supply means for supplying purified air to the space of the mask body (see Fig. 1-2, purified air supply means 104, see para. 0045 and 0050 which discloses 104 including a filter thus providing purified air supply means ), wherein an inlet through which the purified air is supplied into the space and an outlet through which the purified air supplied is discharged from the space to surroundings are formed in the mask body ( Fig. 2 and para. 0045, inlet at 104, outlet at 106, fans providing flow of air ), the outlet configured to be positioned in the mask body at a place that crosses over the user’s respiratory system face from the inlet along the transverse direction that crosses the user’s face (see Fig. 2 ), when the user wears the mask body and the purified air operates, the purified air flows from the inlet to the outlet and the flow forms a forced flow by pressure supplied by the purified air supply means into the space through the inlet (see Fig. 2 and para. 0045 ), and the user’s respiratory system is positioned in the middle of the forced flow so that when the user wears the mask body the forced flowing air is inhaled when the user inhales and exhaled breath discharged when the user exhales along the forced flow (see Fig. 2 and para. 0045 ). Regarding claim 5, the Lim device is such that the outlet is formed toward a rear direction of the mask body with respect to the transverse direction that crosses the face of the user wearing the mask body (see Fig. 2, outlet 106 is provided towards the rear direction, bottom side in this figure compared to the front, upper side of mask body 102 in this figure). Regarding claim 6, the Lim device’s outlet is formed vertically toward the rear direction of the mask body with respect to the transverse direction that crosses the face of the user wearing the mask body or at an acute angle (see Fig. 2, outlet 106 is provided towards the rear direction, bottom side in this figure compared to the front, upper side of mask body 102 in this figure, the outlet 106 has a vertical dimension as shown in Fig. 1 and is thus also vertically formed). 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Chen et al. (2022/0008760) . Regarding claim 2, the Lin device is silent as to the purified air supply means being provided separately from the mask body and connected thereto with a supply channel; however, Chen discloses a similar device which teaches this feature (see Chen Fig. 1 mask body 10 and purification supply means 20 are separate, connected thereto via supply channel as shown). 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 Lin device’s mask body and supply means to be separate elements connected via supply channel, as taught by Chen as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element for another and would provide a lower profile for the mask worn by the user (via purification means located elsewhere). Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Taylor et al. (2023/0158196) . Regarding claim 7, the Lin device is silent as to the outlet positioned on an upper surface part of the mask body; however, Taylor discloses a similar device which teaches this feature (see Taylor Fig. 3 with outlet 15 located on an upper surface part of mask body 5). 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 Lin device’s outlet to be located on an upper surface part of the mask body, as taught by Taylor, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element/location for the outlet for another, obvious rearrangement of parts, and one would expect the modified Lin device to perform equally as well. See MPEP 2144.04 VI C. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Choi et al. (2021/0402223) . Regarding claim 9 , the Lin device is silent as to including an air purification filter being detachably installed with respect to the outlet (see Lin Fig. 1 and 3, filter 2173 per para. 0031 and thus provided to the outlet); however, Choi disclose a similar device which teaches this feature (See Choi Fig. 5 and para. 0191 which discloses replaceable filters 23 and 24 and thus detachable installation with the mask device). 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 Lin device’s outlet filter to be detachably installed, as taught by Choi, in order to provide the ability to replace the filters when they become worn due to use to extend the life of the facial mask. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. When read in light of the limitations of the claimed facial mask, the prior art does not disclose, either alone or suggest in combination, a facial mask including the limitations set forth in claim 1 and wherein the outlet is positioned between the user’s cheek and a side of the mask body at opposite position to the inlet with reference to the transverse direction that crosses the user’s face when the user wears the mask body as set forth in claim 4. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lyle (2022/0249879), Laty (2021/0330831), Fu (2024/0024707), Lo (2023/0372746), and Lee (2022/0143431) disclose facial masks similar to the claimed/disclosed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT COLIN W STUART whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7490 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Timothy Stanis can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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