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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species B (Moldable Polymer Mesh) and Species E (Set of Pockets) is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed February 9, 2026. Claims 3, 6-7, 9, and 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) for being drawn to a nonelected species. Additionally, claim 4 has been determined to be drawn to a nonelected species (Species A – Structural Foam) based on Applicant’s disclosure and has therefore also been withdrawn from further consideration for being drawn to a nonelected species.
Drawings
Due to the volume of informalities and lack of clarity in Figures 1A-41, it is respectfully noted that the list of informalities detailed below is merely exemplary and that additional informalities may be identified in future office action(s).
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1A-36 and 39B-41 are completely lacking reference numerals with the majority of the elements depicted in those drawings lacking any indicators as to what is depicted. The descriptions of those various drawings, particularly the description of Figures 1A-36 on pages 8-13 of the specification are vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in the respective drawings. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1A-1G lack reference numerals and the description of Figures 1A-1G on page 8, lines 18-22 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figures 1A-1G. Figures 1A-1G are described in the specification as depicting “various two-dimensional embodiments of a first component to construct a mask” (see page 8, lines 18-22 of the specification). However, Figures 1A-1G lack reference numerals and the specification lacks sufficient information to indicate what type of mask element(s) the “first component” represents. For example, is the “first component” in Figure 1A a nose clip, a neck strap, an intermediate frame, a fabric element, a combination of multiple of those element(s), or some other mask element? Likewise, although rectangles in Figure 1A are designated as “hook & loop,” there is no indication as to what corresponding hook and loop fastener (?) (if any) the hook and loop rectangles in Figure 1A are configured to correspond.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 2A-2D lack reference numerals and the description of Figures 2A-2D on page 8, lines 23-28 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figures 2A-2D. Figures 2A-2D are described in the specification as depicting “various two-dimensional embodiments of a second component” (see page 8, lines 23-28 of the specification). However, Figures 2A-2D also lack reference numerals and the specification lacks sufficient information to indicate what type of mask element(s) the “second component” represents. For example, is the “second component” in Figure 2A a nose clip, a neck strap, an intermediate frame, a fabric element, a combination of multiple of those element(s), or some other mask element?
The drawings are objected to because Figure 3 lacks reference numerals and the description of Figure 3 on page 8, line 29 – pg. 9, line 2 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figure 3.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 4A-4G lack reference numerals and the description of Figures 4A-4G on page 9, lines 3-13 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figures 4A-4G.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 5A-5B lack reference numerals and the description of Figures 5A-5B on page 9, lines 14-19 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figures 5A-5B. Figures 5A-5B include various rectangles identified as “hook & loop” and “hooks,” but it is unclear to what (if any) corresponding fasteners those rectangles are configured to mate.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 6 lacks reference numerals and the description of Figure 6 on page 9, lines 20-24 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figure 6. Figure 6 includes various rectangles identified as “hook & loop” and “hooks,” but it is unclear to what (if any) corresponding fasteners those rectangles are configured to mate.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 7A-7C lack reference numerals and the description of Figures 7A-7C on page 9, lines 25 – page 10, line1 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figures 7A-7C. Figures 7A-7C include various rectangles identified as “hook & loop” and “hooks,” but it is unclear to what (if any) corresponding fasteners those rectangles are configured to mate.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 8 lacks reference numerals and the description of Figure 8 on page 10, lines 2-4/5(?) of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figure 8. Figure 8 includes various rectangles identified as “hook & loop” and “hooks,” but it is unclear to what (if any) corresponding fasteners those rectangles are configured to mate.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 9 lacks reference numerals and the description of Figure 9 on page 10, lines 6-14 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figure 9. The shape(s) depicted in Figure 9 are particularly confusing and it is unclear how they relate to any type of face masking system.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 10 lacks reference numerals and the description of Figure 10 on page 10, lines 15-17 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figure 10. The shape(s) depicted in Figure 10 are particularly confusing and it is unclear how they relate to any type of face masking system.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 11 lacks reference numerals and the description of Figure 11 on page 10, lines 18-19 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figure 11. The shape(s) depicted in Figure 11 are particularly confusing and it is unclear how they relate to any type of face masking system.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 12 lacks reference numerals and the description of Figure 12 on page 10, lines 20-22 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figure 12. The shape(s) depicted in Figure 12 are particularly confusing and it is unclear how they relate to any type of face masking system.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 13 lacks reference numerals and the description of Figure 13 on page 10, lines 23-26 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figure 13. The shape(s) depicted in Figure 13 are particularly confusing and it is unclear how they relate to any type of face masking system.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 14 lacks reference numerals and the description of Figure 14 on page 10, lines 27-28 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figure 14. The shape(s) depicted in Figure 14 are particularly confusing and it is unclear how they relate to any type of face masking system.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 15A-15B lack reference numerals and the description of Figures 15A-15B on page 10, line 29 – page 11, line 11 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figures 15A-15B. The shape(s) depicted in Figures 15A-15B are particularly confusing and it is unclear how they relate to any type of face masking system.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 16A-16B lack reference numerals and the description of Figures 16A-16B on page 11, lines 12-14 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figures 15A-15B. The shape(s) depicted in Figures 16A-16B are particularly confusing and it is unclear how they relate to any type of face masking system.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 17A-17B lack reference numerals and the description of Figures 17A-17B on page 11, lines 15-17 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figures 17A-17B. The shape(s) depicted in Figures 17A-17B are particularly confusing and it is unclear how they relate to any type of face masking system.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 18A-18B lack reference numerals and the description of Figures 18A-18B on page 11, lines 18-21 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figures 18A-18B. The shape(s) depicted in Figures 18A-18B are particularly confusing and it is unclear how they relate to any type of face masking system.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 19A-19B lack reference numerals and the description of Figures 19A-19B on page 11, lines 22-24 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figures 19A-19B. The shape(s) depicted in Figures 19A-19B are particularly confusing and it is unclear how they relate to any type of face masking system.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 20A-20C lack reference numerals and the description of Figures 20A-20C on page 11, lines 25-26 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figures 20A-20C. The shape(s) depicted in Figures 20A-20C are particularly confusing and it is unclear how they relate to any type of face masking system.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 21 lacks reference numerals and the description of Figure 21 on page 11, lines 27-28 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figure 21. The shape(s) depicted in Figure 21 are particularly confusing and it is unclear how they relate to any type of face masking system.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 22-26 lack reference numerals and the description of Figures 22-26 on page 12, lines 6-12 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figures 22-26.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 27-28 lack reference numerals and the description of Figures 27-28 on page 12, lines 13-15 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figures 27-28.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 29-30 lack reference numerals and the description of Figures 29-30 on page 12, lines 16-17 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figures 29-30.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 31 lacks reference numerals and the description of Figure 31 on page 12, lines 18-21 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figure 31.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 32 lacks reference numerals and the description of Figure 32 on page 12, lines 22-23 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figure 32.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 33-34 lack reference numerals and the description of Figures 33-34 on page 12, lines 24-26 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figures 33-34.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 35 lacks reference numerals and the description of Figure 35 on page 12, line 27 – page 13, line 1 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figure 35.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 36 lacks reference numerals and the description of Figure 36 on page 13, lines 2-6 of the specification is vague and inadequate to describe the element(s) depicted in Figure 36.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because reference numeral 3706 is described on page 13, line 11 of the specification as being “neck strap 3706.” However, reference numeral 3706 in Figure 37 appears to designate an unspecified rectangular object rather than the only element in Figure 37 that appears to resemble a “strap” (see annotated Figure 37, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
775
1050
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The drawings are objected to because Figure 38 includes elements which are not described in the specification and it is unclear what these elements depict. For example, reference numeral 3804 is described in the specification as “nose clip” (see page 13, lines 16-24 of the specification). However, there is a second element in Figure 38 that appears similar to nose clip 3804 but that lacks a reference numeral (see annotated Figure 38, below). Is this second element an additional nose clip or some other element? There is no information in the specification regarding why there would be a second nose clip. Likewise, both nose clip 3804 and the possible second nose clip each include a series of circles thereon, which lack explanation (or is reference numeral 3804 indicating one of the circles as being the “nose clip?”). It is additionally unclear from Figure 38 and the specification how nose clip 3804 would attach to the other elements depicted in Figure 38.
PNG
media_image2.png
768
1075
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the intermediate frame having sufficient structural rigidity to be supported solely by the set of structural components” as recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “fabric element attached to the intermediate frame” as recited in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “intermediate frame includes grommets” as recited in claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “set of pockets” as recited in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “attachment means” as recited in claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. No new matter should be entered.
Specification
Due to the volume of informalities and lack of clarity in the Specification, it is respectfully noted that the list of informalities detailed below is merely exemplary and that additional informalities may be identified in future office action(s).
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: “first mask component,” “second mask component,” “components,” and “mask components.” For example, Figures 1A-1G are described in the specification as depicting “various two-dimensional embodiments of a first component to construct a mask” (see page 8, lines 18-22 of the specification). However, Figures 1A-1G lack reference numerals and the specification lacks sufficient information to indicate what type of mask element(s) the “first component” represents. For example, is the “first component” in Figure 1A a nose clip, a neck strap, an intermediate frame, a fabric element, a combination of multiple of those element(s), or some other mask element(s)? Likewise, although rectangles in Figure 1A are designated as “hook & loop,” there is no indication as to what corresponding hook and loop fastener (?) (if any) the hook and loop rectangles in Figure 1A are configured to correspond. It is additionally unclear what element(s) the series of circles depicted in Figures 1F, 1G, and 1H are intended to represent. Similarly, Figures 2A-2D are described in the specification as depicting “various two-dimensional embodiments of a second component” (see page 8, lines 23-28 of the specification). However, Figures 2A-2D also lack reference numerals and the specification lacks sufficient information to indicate what type of mask element(s) the “second component” represents. For example, is the “second component” in Figure 2A a nose clip, a neck strap, an intermediate frame, a fabric element, a combination of multiple of those element(s), or some other mask element(s)? It is respectfully noted that the examples detailed above are merely exemplary, and that the specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. Substantial revision is required. No new matter should be entered.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 10 of the specification appears to recite line number 5 twice (see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
291
1170
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
It is noted that the limitation “attachment means” as recited in claim 10 invokes 35 USC 112(f) because it uses the term “means” modified by functional language (i.e., “attachment”) without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. It is further noted that page 16 of the specification recites that “it is expressly intended that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) are not to be invoked unless the specific terms ‘means for’ or ‘step for’ are recited in a claim” (see page 16, lines 13-15 of the specification). However, it is respectfully noted that invocation of 35 USC 112(f) is not optional. If a claim limitation meets the three-prong test of 35 USC 112(f), detailed above, 35 USC 112(f) is invoked. As such, if Applicant does not wish to invoke 35 USC 112(f), claim 10 may be amended to recite, for example, a “fastener” as opposed to “attachment means.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
It is respectfully noted that, as best understood by the Examiner, the subject matter recited in claims 1-2, 5, 8, and 10 generally does not map well to the specification and drawings, making it difficult to determine the precise nature of the subject matter being claimed.
Claim 1 recites “a neck strap.” However, the only structure designated with a reference numeral as a “neck strap” (i.e., “neck strap 3706” as alleged depicted in Figure 37) does not appear to designate a neck strap but rather an unspecified rectangular object (see drawing objection to Figure 37, above) and upon information and belief, Figure 37 depicts an embodiment that was not elected by Applicant in the Response to Election/Restriction filed February 9, 2026 (i.e., Species A – Structural Foam). Figure 39B includes an element which possibly resembles a neck strap but this element lacks a reference numeral and Figure 39B is not specifically disclosed as including a neck strap. As such, for at least these reasons there is insufficient information about the general configuration of a neck strap to reasonably convey possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a fabric element attached to the intermediate frame.” However, upon information and belief none of the drawings depict a “fabric element.” For at least that reason, there is insufficient information about the general configuration of a fabric element to reasonably convey possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the fabric includes a set of pockets that engage with the intermediate frame.” However, the drawings do not depict pockets and the specification includes only vague and general information about pockets, lacking sufficient detail about the pockets including the shape, size, and overall configuration of any pockets. As such, there is insufficient information about the configuration of the pockets to reasonably convey possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “attachment means.” As detailed above under the “Claim Interpretation” heading, the limitation “attachment means” invokes 35 USC 112(f). However, the phrase “attachment means” is not recited in the specification and therefore the specification lacks sufficient information about the configuration of the attachment means to reasonably convey possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims are rejected at least for depending from a rejected claim.
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 8 and 10 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 8 recites the limitation “the fabric.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear how it relates to the previously-recited “fabric element” (claim 1). For purposes of examination, the limitation in claim 8 will be interpreted as reciting “the fabric element.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation “attachment means.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite at least because, as detailed above under the “Claim Interpretation” heading, the limitation “attachment means” invokes 35 USC 112(f). However, the specification does not describe the attachment means as required by 35 USC 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected, as best understood in view of the instant disclosure, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 11,388,939 Bergman in view of US Pub No. 2020/0114179 Torbenson.
To claim 1, Bergman discloses a face masking system (see Figures 1-22B; col. 3, line 36 – col. 15, line 5) comprising:
a set of structural components including a neck strap (not numbered; see Figures 1-11; col. 3, lines 36-60; see also neck straps 1230 and 1240 in Figures 12A-22B; col.8, line 19 – col. 9, line 17);
an intermediate frame (150) coupled to each of the set of structural components, the intermediate frame having sufficient structural rigidity to be supported solely by the set of structural components (see Figures 1-11; col. 5, lines 12-48); and
a fabric element (110,120) attached to the intermediate frame (see Figures 1-11; col. 5, lines 12-48).
Bergman does not expressly disclose a nose clip.
However, Torbenson teaches a face masking system comprising at least one nose clip (1520) (see for example Figures 15A-15D; para. 0104).
Bergman and Torbenson teach analogous inventions in the field of facemasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the face masking system of Bergman to include a nose clip as taught by Torbenson because Torbenson teaches that this configuration is known in the art. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a nose clip would help secure the facemask to the nose of a wearer to prevent the facemask from inadvertently sliding down the face of the wearer during use.
To claim 8, the modified invention of Bergman (i.e., Bergman in view of Torbenson, as detailed above) further teaches a face masking system wherein the fabric element includes a set of pockets that engage with the intermediate frame (see especially Figure 2 of Bergman; col. 5, lines 12-48; inasmuch as currently disclosed and claimed, the areas within fabric element 110,120 of Bergman configured to accept portions of intermediate frame 150 of Bergman are considered pockets).
Claim 2 is rejected, as best understood in view of the instant disclosure, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergman in view of Torbenson (as applied to claim 1, above), and in further view of US Pub No. 2021/0361003 Barr.
To claim 2, the modified invention of Bergman (i.e., Bergman in view of Torbenson, as detailed above) teaches a face masking system as recited in claim 1, above.
The modified invention of Bergman does not explicitly teach a masking system wherein the intermediate frame includes grommets that couple to at least one of the set of structural components.
However, Barr teaches a face masking system (see Figure 1-30; paras. 0063-0083; claims 3 and 19) wherein an intermediate frame includes grommets that couple to at least one of a set of structural components (claims 3 and 19).
The modified invention of Bergman and Barr teach analogous inventions in the field of facemasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the face masking system of the modified invention of Bergman to include grommets as taught by Barr because Barr teaches that grommets are a suitable fastener type along with snaps, buttons, hook and loop fastener, rivets, screws, stitching, adhesive, and interference fit for use with a face masking system (claims 3 and 19). It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that grommets provide strength and reinforcement properties to structures in which they are attached.
Claim 5 is rejected, as best understood in view of the instant disclosure, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergman in view of Torbenson (as applied to claim 1, above), in further view of US Pub No. 2017/0252590 Angadjivand et al.
To claim 5, the modified invention of Bergman (i.e., Bergman in view of Torbenson, as detailed above) further teaches a face masking system wherein the intermediate frame is made of a moldable nonwoven material (col. 5, lines 36-48 of Bergman).
The modified invention of Bergman does not expressly disclose a face masking system wherein the intermediate frame is made of a moldable polymer mesh.
However, Angadjivand teaches a face masking system (see Figures 1-6; para. 0003) wherein an intermediate frame is made of a moldable polymer mesh (para. 0003).
The modified invention of Bergman and Angadjivand teach analogous inventions in the field of facemasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the face masking system of the modified invention of Bergman to include an intermediate frame made from a moldable material that is a moldable polymer mesh as taught by Angadjivand because Angadjivand teaches that this configuration is well-known and customary in the facemask arts as an alternative to moldable nonwoven materials to provide structural reinforcement in the form of shape-retention properties (para. 0003).
Claim 10 is rejected, insofar as definite and as best understood in view of the instant disclosure, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergman in view of Torbenson (as applied to claim 1, above), in further view of Angadjivand and Barr.
To claim 10, the modified invention of Bergman (i.e., Bergman in view of Torbenson, as detailed above) further teaches a face masking system wherein the structural components further comprise a plurality of border pieces (130a,130b of Bergman) (see for example Figure 2 and col. 4, lines 48-57 of Bergman), the nose clip is held to the intermediate frame with rivets or snap fasteners (see for example Figures 15A-15D and para. 0104 of Torbenson), and the intermediate frame includes an attachment means that facilitates removable and replaceable connection with the fabric element (see for example Figures 1-2 and col. 5, lines 12-48 of Bergman; sewing).
The modified invention of Bergman (i.e., Bergman in view of Torbenson, as detailed above) teaches a face masking system wherein the intermediate frame is made of a moldable nonwoven material (col. 5, lines 36-48 of Bergman).
The modified invention of Bergman does not expressly disclose a face masking system wherein the intermediate frame is made of a moldable polymer mesh.
However, Angadjivand teaches a face masking system (see Figures 1-6; para. 0003) wherein an intermediate frame is made of a moldable polymer mesh (para. 0003).
The modified invention of Bergman and Angadjivand teach analogous inventions in the field of facemasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the face masking system of the modified invention of Bergman to include an intermediate frame made from a moldable material that is a moldable polymer mesh as taught by Angadjivand because Angadjivand teaches that this configuration is well-known and customary in the facemask arts as an alternative to moldable nonwoven materials to provide structural reinforcement in the form of shape-retention properties (para. 0003).
The modified invention of Bergman (i.e., Bergman in view of Torbenson, and Angadjivand, as detailed above) teaches the nose clip being held to an intermediate frame by a rivet or a snap fastener (para. 0104).
The modified invention of Bergman does not expressly teach the nose clip being held to the intermediate frame with at least two grommets.
However, Barr teaches a face masking system (see Figure 1-30; paras. 0063-0083; claims 3 and 19) wherein an intermediate frame includes grommets that couple to at least one of a set of structural components (claims 3 and 19).
The modified invention of Bergman and Barr teach analogous inventions in the field of facemasks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the face masking system of the modified invention of Bergman to include grommets as taught by Barr because Barr teaches that grommets are a suitable fastener type along with snaps, buttons, hook and loop fastener, rivets, screws, stitching, adhesive, and interference fit for use with a face masking system (claims 3 and 19). It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that grommets provide strength and reinforcement properties to structures in which they are attached. It would additionally further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a simple substitution of one well-known fastener (rivets or snaps) with another (grommets) to yield the predictable result of attaching the nose clip to the intermediate frame.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Additional facemasks analogous to the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRIFFIN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at (571) 272-3425. 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.
/F Griffin Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732