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 claims filed 6/5/23. Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/18/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Note: the crossed-through references are not being considered at this time as at least an English language abstract or some other explanation of relevance has not been provided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 230. 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. 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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "23" and "230" have both been used to designate the head support component and reference character “10” and “100” have both been used to designate the face mask. 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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4, the language ”the mask cover” (line 3) is objected to for not maintaining consistency in claim terminology (see claim 2 line 2); Examiner suggests amending to read –the face mask cover--.
Regarding claim 5, the language “the close-loop strap portion” (line 9) is objected to for a typographical error; Examiner suggests amending to read –the closed-loop strap portion--.
Regarding claim 7, the language “strap pathway protrusion s configured” (line 4) is objected to for a typographical error; Examiner suggests amending to read –strap pathway protrusion is configured--.
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.
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: “face engagement component” in claim 3 and “head support component” in claim 5.
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.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the language “teeth protruding from of the interior tongue surface” (line 12-13) is unclear as the examiner cannot ascertain the meaning of this limitation, particularly the phrase ‘from of’ in this context.
Regarding claim 4, the language “teeth protruding from of the second interior tongue surface” (line 11) is unclear as the examiner cannot ascertain the meaning of this limitation, particularly the phrase ‘from of’ in this context.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second strap pathway" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “substantially aligned” in claim 8 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 known what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘substantially aligned’.
The term “approximately halfway” in claim 9 line 4 (emphasis added) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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 known what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘approximately halfway’.
Regarding claim 10, the language “teeth protruding from of the exterior pathway” (line 4) is unclear as the examiner cannot ascertain the meaning of this limitation, particularly the phrase ‘from of’ in this context.
The term “substantially adjacent” in claim 11 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 known what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘substantially adjacent’.
The term “substantially outward” in claim 12 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 known what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘substantially outward’.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first strap length" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the mask cover" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the language “teeth protruding from of the second exterior pathway” (line 10-11) is unclear as the examiner cannot ascertain the meaning of this limitation, particularly the phrase ‘from of’ in this context.
The term “substantially outward” in claim 13 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 known what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘substantially outward’.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the at least partially curved profile" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “substantially towards” in claim 15 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 known what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘substantially towards’.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the one or more strap engagement slots" in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, the language “the plurality of strap engagement slots” (line 1-2) is unclear as claim 16 only positively sets forth one engagement slot with the language “at least one strap engagement slot” (line 2) and it is not known if Applicant is intending to further limit the claims to include plural slots or merely attempting to refer back to the at least one slot.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the strap pathway length" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the strap pathway length" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the second slot" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the third slot" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 101723421) (see attached translation) in view of Kielow et al. (8,505,536).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a face mask assembly (see Fig. 1-7, abstract) which includes a face mask configured for dynamic engagement with at least a first strap of a strap assembly such that the face mask is configured for selective movement in one or more directions along a strap length of the first strap (see Fig. 1 showing face mask assembly as a whole, with face mask being the components in Fig. 2 other than strap assembly defined by elements 170 and 200, 170 being at least a first strap and the mask is configured for selective movement along the strap length via strap pathways 131 on either lateral sides of element 130, see pg. 3-4 of the translation for example), the face mask including a first strap pathway including an exterior pathway surface positioned on a first lateral side of the face mask and configured to receive at least a portion of the first strap along the exterior pathway surface (see Fig. 1, 3, and 6, first strap pathway being one of the pathways 131 which is on one lateral side, with a second pathway on the opposite lateral side, and having an exterior surface as shown with engagement teeth 133 thereon facing out/away from mask, see pg. 3-4 of the translation); and a strap engagement tongue defined by a material thickness extending between an exterior and interior tongue surface and including a plurality of strap engagement teeth protruding from the interior tongue surface (see Fig. 6, strap engagement tongue being at least one of the tongues 131b with interior and exterior surfaces as shown, engagement teeth 133 facing in/towards rest of the mask); wherein the strap engagement tongue is positioned along the first strap pathway such that the exterior tongue surface defines at least a portion of the exterior pathway surface of the first strap pathway (see Fig. 6, exterior surface of tongue 131b defining exterior pathway surface); wherein the face mask is configured to be selectively adjustable between a dynamic configuration and a locked configuration relative to the first strap based at least in part on the arrangement of the first strap relative to the strap engagement tongue (see Fig. 6 and in particular the detail circle showing dynamic and lock configurations, see also Fig. 4a showing dynamic configuration and 4b showing lock configuration with structural element 150 additionally assisting in the configurations with 130, which includes tongues 131b); and wherein, in the locked configuration, the strap engagement teeth are configured to provide frictional resistance to the first strap to resist movement of the face mask relative to the strap length of the first strap (see Fig. 3-4 and 6, see pg. 3-7 of the translation). It appears that the Kim reference is capable of providing a drop-down feature or donned and drop-down positions; however, Kim does not explicitly disclose such a feature. However, Kielow discloses a similar face mask which includes donned and drop-down positions of the mask with relative movement along straps (see Kielow figures showing mask and col. 4 ln. 35-44 which discloses donned and drop-down positions). 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 Kim device to explicitly include the donned and drop-down positions, as taught by Kielow, in order to provide the ability of the user to remove the mask and rapidly don the mask again when necessary, i.e. without complete separation of the face mask from the strap assembly (see Kielow col. 4 ln. 35-44).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Kim device’s face mask is dynamically engaged with the strap assembly via a connection of the first strap to a face mask cover of the face mask and wherein the first strap pathway is defined along an exterior surface of the face mask cover (see Kim Fig. 1-2, face mask cover defined by elements 130 and 150, with strap pathways 131 on the lateral exterior sides of the face mask cover as shown, see pg. 3-7 of the translation regarding dynamic engagement with the strap assembly, see also Kielow col. 4 ln. 35-44).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Kim device further includes a face engagement component configured to engage a face of a user at a seal interface that extends along a perimeter of an open end of the face engagement component (see Kim Fig. 2, face engagement component 110 whose inner/user facing side is a seal interface, see pg. 3 of the translation); and wherein the face engagement component and face mask cover define distinct components configured to be removably attached to one another (see Kim Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Kim device further includes a second strap pathway including a second exterior pathway surface defined along the exterior surface of the mask cover and positioned on a second lateral side of the face mask with the second pathway configured to receive at least a portion of a second strap along the exterior pathway surface such that the face mask is configured for selective movement in one or more directions along a second strap length of the second strap (see Kim Fig. 3-4 and 6, the second strap pathway being the other, laterally opposite pathway 131 with similar exterior pathway surface as the first, see pg. 3-7 of the translation; second strap being the other of straps 170); and a second strap engagement tongue defined by a second material thickness extending between exterior and interior tongue surfaces and including a second plurality of strap engagement teeth protruding from the second interior tongue surface (see Kim Fig. 3-4 and 6, second tongue being at least one of 131b on the second pathway, i.e. the laterally opposite pathway 131 from the first, and which is defined by interior and exterior surfaces with second plurality of strap engagement teeth 133 on the interior surface); wherein the second strap engagement tongue is positioned along the second strap pathway such that the exterior surface defines at least a portion of the second exterior pathway surface of the second strap pathway (see Kim Fig. 6, exterior surface of tongue 131b defining exterior pathway surface of the second, laterally opposite pathway 131); and wherein, in the locked configuration, the second plurality of teeth are configured to provide frictional resistance to the second strap to resist the movement of the face mask relative to the second strap length of the second strap (see Kim Fig. 3-4 and 6, see pg. 3-7 of the translation).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Kim device’s first strap pathway includes a material protrusion extending from a first lateral side edge of the first strap pathway in a width direction towards a second lateral side edge of the pathway and wherein the pathway protrusion is configured to physically engage the first strap in order to provide frictional resistance to the first strap to resist movement of the face mask relative to the strap length of the first strap (see Kim Fig. 3-4 and 6, see pg. 3-7 of the translation, the strap pathway protrusion being another one of 131b of the first strap pathway which extends in width direction from a first lateral side edge, outer edge, towards a second, inner lateral edge as shown).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Kim device’s strap pathway protrusion is arranged in a position along the first strap pathway that is at least substantially aligned with at least a portion of the strap engagement tongue (see Kim Fig. 6, protrusion 131b aligned with tongue, another 131b, along the pathway).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Kim device is silent as to the strap engagement tongue and protrusion both provided to a central portion of the strap pathway as claimed (Kim discloses a central tongue 131b, but not both a centrally located tongue and protrusion aligned with each other at the central potion); however, Kielow discloses a similar strap management element with tongue and protrusion located opposing each other (see Kielow Fig. 1, opposing protrusion and tongue arrangement 18 and also 19). 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 Kim device to include opposingly aligned strap engagement tongue and protrusion, in order to provide additional securement element at the same location and further this would have been obvious substitution of one known element/strap securement element for another and one would expect the modified Kim device to perform equally as well.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Kim device’s first strap pathway extends along a strap pathway length between first and second ends and includes a second plurality of strap engagement teeth protruding from the exterior pathway surface at the second end (see Kim Fig. 3 and 6, in particular Fig. 3 showing second plurality of teeth 133 at a bottom, second end of the pathway 131).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Kim device’s second strap pathway end is defined by a bottom end of the pathway positioned at least substantially adjacent a bottom edge of the face mask (see Kim Fig. 3a, b).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Kim device’s second plurality of strap engagement teeth are configured to protrude from the exterior pathway surface in an at least substantially outward direction away from the face mask so as to provide frictional resistance to a bottom surface of the first strap to resist movement of the face mask relative to the first strap length (see Kim Fig. 3-4 and 6, pg. 3-7 of the translation).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Kim device further includes a second strap pathway including a second exterior pathway surface defined along the exterior surface of the mask cover and positioned on a second lateral side of the face mask with the second pathway configured to receive at least a portion of a second strap along the exterior pathway surface such that the face mask is configured for selective movement in one or more directions along a second strap length of the second strap (see Kim Fig. 3-4 and 6, the second strap pathway being the other, laterally opposite pathway 131 with similar exterior pathway surface as the first, see pg. 3-7 of the translation; second strap being the other of straps 170); wherein the second strap pathway extends along a second length between third and fourth ends and including a third plurality of strap engagement teeth protruding from the second exterior pathway surface at the fourth end of the second pathway (see Fig. 3a and b, third and fourth ends being the upper and lower ends of the second, lateral opposite pathway 131 of the first, with third plurality of teeth 133 on lower end of the second pathway); wherein the third plurality of strap engagement teeth are configured to protrude from the exterior pathway surface in an at least substantially outward direction away from the face mask so as to provide frictional resistance to a bottom surface of the second strap to resist movement of the face mask relative to the second strap length (see Kim Fig. 3-4 and 6, pg. 3-7 of the translation).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Kim device is such that at least a partially curved profile of the first pathway is defined by an arc-shaped curve having an apex and a curve opening, the opening facing at least substantially towards the first lateral side of the face mask (see Kim Fig. 3 and 6, curved with apex towards interior of face mask and opening facing towards lateral side of the face mask as shown).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Kim device includes plural strap engagement slots distributed along a strap pathway length and each configured to receive a respective portion of the first strap (see Kim Fig. 2-3 and 6, slots defined between adjacent elements 131b, adjacent elements 151, and also between interior and exterior surfaces of 131b as shown in Fig. 6, all of which receives strap 170).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Kim device’s first strap pathway is defined by an at least partially curved profile (see Kim Fig. 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Kim device’s first strap pathway further includes at least one strap engagement slot defined by an opening in the exterior pathway surface that is configured to receive a portion of the first strap to facilitate dynamic engagement of the first strap by the face mask (see Kim Fig. 2-3 and 6, slots defined between adjacent elements 131b, adjacent elements 151, and also between interior and exterior surfaces of 131b as shown in Fig. 6, all of which receives strap 170 for dynamic engagement).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Kim device’s plural strap engagement slots are distributed along the pathway length and include first, second, third, and fourth slots each extending in respective width directions between opposing lateral edges of the pathway and to dynamically engage the first strap by threading in alternating directions through adjacent slots (see Kim Fig. 2-3 and 6, slots defined between adjacent elements 131b, adjacent elements 151, and also between interior and exterior surfaces of 131b as shown in Fig. 6, which define at least first through fourth slots, all of which receives strap 170 for dynamic engagement, strap capable of alternating threading).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Kim device’s strap engagement tongue is positioned along the pathway length in between second and third slots (see Kim Fig. 3 and 6, the middle 131b being the engagement tongue and is positioned between slots of the upper and lower 131b).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Kim device’s first strap pathway includes a strap adjustment gap defined by a slot opening in the exterior pathway surface extending around at least a portion of an outer perimeter of the engagement tongue to separate the tongue from adjacent portions of the exterior pathway surface (see Kim Fig. 2-3 and 6, slots defined between adjacent elements 131b, adjacent elements 151, and also between interior and exterior surfaces of 131b as shown in Fig. 6, slot openings extending around portion of engagement tongues 131b as shown).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Kielow as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kubo (JP 2003299744).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Kim device includes a strap with a length defined by two ends and is configured to attach to a head support component of the strap assembly (see Kim Fig. 1-2, strap 170 with length and ends, one of which attaches directly to head support component 200), but is silent as to the first strap defines a closed-loop strap portion including an intermediate strap portion defined in between the first strap end and the second strap end, and wherein the first strap pathway is configured to receive the first strap at the intermediate strap portion such that the selective movement of the face mask between the donned position and the drop-down position is at least partially defined within the close-loop strap portion of the first strap. However, Kubo teaches a similar face mask which includes first and second straps which include ends both connected to a head support component to form a closed-loop strap portion as claimed (see Kubo Fig. 1, straps 12a and 12b both of which connect at both ends to head support component 11). 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 Kim device’s straps to be a closed-loop configuration with both ends attaching to head support component, as taught by Kubo, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element/configuration for another and one would expect the modified Kim device to perform equally as well.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Kim device includes a second strap defined along a second strap length between two opposing strap ends, wherein both of the two opposing strap ends of the second strap are configured for attachment to the head support component of the strap assembly such that the second strap defines a second closed-loop strap portion including a second intermediate strap portion defined in between the two opposing strap ends, and wherein the second strap pathway is configured to receive the second strap at the second intermediate strap portion such that the selective movement of the face mask between the donned position and the drop-down position is defined at least partially within the second closed-loop strap portion of the second strap (see Kim Fig. 1-2 which show first and second straps, as modified in view of Kubo first 12a and second 12b straps to be closed-loop type with both ends attaching to head support component 11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: KR 20090010452, Zhang (CN 202637766), Michel et al. (5,181,507), Fecteau et al. (6,536,435), and Byram (6,591,837) disclose face mask assemblies similar to the claimed/disclosed invention.
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