Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/352,560

FACE MASK

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jul 14, 2023
Examiner
STUART, COLIN W
Art Unit
3785
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Hsiner Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
499 granted / 857 resolved
-11.8% vs TC avg
Strong +55% interview lift
Without
With
+54.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
900
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
§103
37.7%
-2.3% vs TC avg
§102
15.3%
-24.7% vs TC avg
§112
31.5%
-8.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 857 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 7/14/23. Claims 1-7 are pending in the instant application. 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. Claim 7 is 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 7 recites the limitation "said peripheral sections" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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. Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (2019/0224436) in view of Tomlinson et al. (2025/0195810). Regarding claim 1, Cheng discloses a face mask adaptable for different nasal bridges (see Fig. 16A-E and abstract, see also Fig. 27D and 21A-E, para. 0338, 0034) which includes a main body being made of a rigid plastic material, being cup-shaped, and including a peripheral edge and a protrusion spaced apart from the peripheral edge in a transverse direction and the main body being tapered from the peripheral edge to the protrusion (see Fig. 16A and B, main body 3200 with peripheral edge at 3205 and protrusion 3202; see para. 0349 which discloses 3200 is made of a transparent polycarbonate, a rigid plastic material, see para. 0402; Fig. 16A, B, and D showing taper from peripheral edge to protrusion, transverse direction being the anterior-posterior direction); and a soft cover made of a flexible plastic material and surrounding the main body and fixed to the peripheral edge of the main body (see Fig. 16A, D and E, soft cover 3100, para. 0322 and para. 0330 which discloses 3100 being made of soft flexible plastic such as silicone); the peripheral edge having a bottom section, a top section that is opposite the bottom section and two side sections that are connected between the bottom section and the top section, the top section curved and having two end portions respectively connected to the side sections, a central portion located between the end portions and the protrusion and two oblique portions each of which is connected between a respective one of the end portions and the central portion (see annotated Fig. 16B below, dotted line indicating the ends of the top section), the soft cover having a lower section that is fixed to the bottom section of the peripheral edge, a nose section opposite to the lower section and two side sections connected between the lower section and the nose section that respectively correspond to the side sections of the peripheral edge (see annotated Fig. 16C below). Cheng is silent as to the nose section having first and second deformation regions connecting to each other and protruding relative to side sections, and sealingly connected to the mask body and having a wide edge connected to the first deformation region and a narrow edge connected to the central portion of the peripheral edge, and two inclined edges connected between the wide edge and the narrow edge; however, Tomlinson discloses a similar face mask which includes these features (see annotated Figs. 20b below for example, see also Fig. 18 and 68; second deformation region being between the two labeled wide and narrow edges, first deformation region being part in a posterior direction, right side in the figure, of wide edge). 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 Cheng device’s nose portion of the soft cover to include the first and second deformation regions, as taught by Tomlinson, in order to provide that the soft cover better accommodates and seals against differently sized noses (see Tomlinson para. 0716). PNG media_image1.png 772 643 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 783 662 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 472 512 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2, the modified Cheng device is silent as to a ratio of a distance between the end portions of the top section of the peripheral edge and the total length of the peripheral edge ranging from 0.09 to 0.11; however, this would have been an obvious shape/proportion to choose in order to provide a desired shape/sealing effect of the mask on the user and furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP 2144.04 IV A, B. Regarding claim 3, the modified Cheng device is silent as to a ratio of a distance between the wide edge and the narrow edge of the second deformation region to the distance between the end portions of the top section of the peripheral edge ranges from 0.3 to 0.34; however, however, this would have been an obvious shape/proportion to choose in order to provide a desired shape/sealing effect of the mask on the user and furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP 2144.04 IV A, B. Regarding claim 4, the modified Cheng device’s oblique portions cooperate with respective side sections of the peripheral edge connected to end portions to form an obtuse angle (see annotated Fig. 16B and C and Fig. 16A of Cheng, the angles formed are obtuse). Regarding claim 5, the modified Cheng device’s main body further includes a connecting pipe that is fixed to the protrusion (see Cheng Fig. 12A and F, connecting pipe 3500). Regarding claim 6, the modified Cheng device’s bottom and top sections of the peripheral edge of the main body are opposite to each other in a longitudinal direction perpendicular to the transverse direction and a cross section of the first deformation region perpendicular to a direction perpendicular to the transverse direction and the longitudinal direction being invertedly J-shaped (see Cheng Fig. 16E showing the J-shape, in light of Fig. 20 of Tomlinson, annotated Fig. 16B showing the top and bottom sections being opposite one another in a longitudinal direction, superior-inferior direction). Regarding claim 7, the modified Cheng device is such that a cross section of the lower section of the soft cover perpendicular to the direction perpendicular to the transverse direction and longitudinal direction is invertedly J-shaped, cross sections of the peripheral sections perpendicular to the longitudinal direction invertedly J-shaped (see Cheng Fig. 16E). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Nelson (2021/0106780), Salmon et al. (2018/0008794), Bearne et al. (2014/0283842), Gambone et al. (2003/0168063), and Matheson et al. (2,706,983) disclose face masks 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 14, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599728
DEVICE FOR INHALING POWDER-TYPE SUBSTANCES, SUBSTANCE CONTAINER FOR A DEVICE OF THIS TYPE AND METHOD FOR FILLING A DEVICE OF THIS TYPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599729
PERSONAL CONTAINER WITH ATTACHMENT MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595033
PRESSURE-REDUCING SYSTEM FOR A BREATHING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589044
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR A HYPERBARIC CHAMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569390
Percussive Adjusting Instrument
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+54.7%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 857 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month