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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 – 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The word “Claim” should be changed to “claim”
Claim 18 should change “the anti-fog material” to “a anti-fog material” in order to introduce the term and have antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 and the dependents claims 7 – 9 & 13 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. This claim does not further limit the porous low-density foam material. Claim 1 discloses that the anti-fog barrier consists of a porous low-density foam material. The consist language limits it to what is stated whereas comprises opens it to more thing. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 & 10 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann et al. (US 6354296 B1) in view of Weiser et al. (US 11510444 B1).
Regarding claim 1, An anti-fog protective mask device 10 comprising: a protective mask 16 configured to adhere to the face of a user wherein the protective mask includes an inner 24 and outer surface 14 and includes an upper (see annotated Figure 2), lower (see annotated Figure 2) and side 20 portion of the inner surface 24; securing apparatus 21 affixed to the protective mask 10 to secure the protective mask 10 to the face of a user (Column 3, lines 53 – 56); and an anti-fog barrier 22 & 12 affixed to the upper portion (see annotated Figure 2) of the inner surface 24 of the protective mask (Column4, lines 15 - 25) wherein the anti-fog barrier 22 & 12 consists of a porous low-density foam material (Column 6, lines 24 – 43 / Column 2, lines 7 – 10) , the porous low-density foam material has a density to reduce moisture from the breadth of the user to cause a fog on the eyewear of a user (Column 3, lines 31 - 47).
Baumann does not disclose the density to be between 10 pores per inch to 40 pores per inch.
Weiver discloses the density to be between 10 pores per inch to 80 pores per inch. (Column 8, lines 36 – 40)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Baumann to include wherein the density to be between 10 pores per inch to 40 pores per inch as 10 pores per inch have large cell structures to allow the most flow and 40 pores per inch would have smaller cells and be more restrictive. This would give more control over how restrictive the foam would be. (Column 8, lines 36 – 40)
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the pores by inch, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05. There is no criticality disclosed in the specification as to why the pores by inch have that specific range.
Regarding claim 10, Modified Baumann discloses the anti-fog protective mask device as claimed in Claim 1.
Modified Baumann discloses further comprising an anti-fog barrier 22 & 12 affixed to the protective mask 10 about the side portions 20 (Figure 1 & 2 disclose the barrier to be connected to the side portions) of the inner surface 24 of the protective mask 10 (Column 2, lines 16 – 23 / Column 4, lines 26 - 30).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Baumann discloses the anti-fog protective mask device as claimed in Claim 10.
Modified Baumann discloses further comprising an anti-fog barrier 22 & 12 affixed to the protective mask 10 of the inner surface 24 of the protective mask 10.
Modified Baumann does not disclose the anti-fog barrier affixed to the lower portion.
Weiser discloses anti-fog barrier affixed to the lower portion. (Column 11, lines 26 – 67)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Baumann to include the anti-fog barrier affixed to the lower portion as it would allow supplying the gripping capability required to seal the lower body edge of the body and users skin. (Column 11, lines 44 – 48)
Claim(s) 2 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann et al. (US 6354296 B1) in view of Weiser et al. (US 11510444 B1) as claimed in claim 1, in further view of Scholz et al. (US 5873931 A).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Baumann discloses the anti-fog protective mask device as claimed in Claim 1.
Modified Baumann wherein the porous low-density foam material (as claimed in claim 1) consists of polyethylene (PE). (Column 5, lines 45 – 61)
Modified Baumann does not specifically disclose the polyethylene to be low-density.
Scholz discloses the polyethylene to be low-density. (Column 18, lines 15 – 20)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Baumann to include the polyethylene to be low-density as it has been found to significantly reduce the anti-fog properties. (Column 18, lines 15 – 20)
Regarding claim 3, Modified Baumann discloses the anti-fog protective mask device as claimed in Claim 1.
Modified Baumann discloses wherein the porous low-density foam material (as claimed in claim 1) further consists polyethylene (PE) and ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA). (Column 5, lines 45 – 67)
Modified Baumann does not disclose the polyethylene to be low-density.
Scholz discloses the polyethylene to be low-density. (Column 18, lines 15 – 20)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Baumann to include the polyethylene to be low-density as it has been found to significantly reduce the anti-fog properties. (Column 18, lines 15 – 20)
Regarding claim 4, Modified Baumann discloses the anti-fog protective mask device as claimed in Claim 2.
Modified Baumann discloses wherein the low-density polyethylene (as claimed in claim 2) has a density of 10 pores per inch. (as claimed in claim 1)
Regarding claim 5, Modified Baumann discloses the anti-fog protective mask device as claimed in Claim 2.
Modified Baumann does not expressly disclose wherein the low-density polyethylene has a density of 30 pores per inch.
Weiver discloses the density to be between 10 pores per inch to 80 pores per inch. (Column 8, lines 36 – 40)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Baumann to include wherein the low-density polyethylene has a density of 30 pores per inch as 10 pores per inch have large cell structures to allow the most flow and 80 pores per inch would have smaller cells and be more restrictive. This would give more control over how restrictive the foam would be. (Column 8, lines 36 – 40) For 30 pores per inch, this would mean it would have larger cell structure and would allow the most flow.
Regarding claim 6, Modified Baumann discloses the anti-fog protective mask device as claimed in Claim 2.
Modified Baumann does not disclose wherein the low-density polyethylene has a density of 40 pores per inch.
Weiver discloses the density to be between 10 pores per inch to 80 pores per inch. (Column 8, lines 36 – 40)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Baumann to include wherein the low-density polyethylene has a density of 40 pores per inch as 10 pores per inch have large cell structures to allow the most flow and 80 pores per inch would have smaller cells and be more restrictive. This would give more control over how restrictive the foam would be. (Column 8, lines 36 – 40) For 40 pores per inch, this would mean it would have larger cell structure and would allow the most flow.
Regarding claim 7, Modified Baumann discloses the anti-fog protective mask device as claimed in Claim 3.
Modified Baumann discloses wherein the low-density polyethylene (as claimed in claim 3) has a density of 10 pores per inch. (as claimed in claim 1)
Regarding claim 8, Modified Baumann discloses the anti-fog protective mask device as claimed in Claim 3.
Modified Baumann does not expressly disclose wherein the low-density polyethylene has a density of 30 pores per inch.
Weiver discloses the density to be between 10 pores per inch to 80 pores per inch. (Column 8, lines 36 – 40)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Baumann to include wherein the low-density polyethylene has a density of 30 pores per inch as 10 pores per inch have large cell structures to allow the most flow and 80 pores per inch would have smaller cells and be more restrictive. This would give more control over how restrictive the foam would be. (Column 8, lines 36 – 40) For 30 pores per inch, this would mean it would have smaller cell structure and would allow more restrictive flow compared to 10 pores per inch.
Regarding claim 9, Modified Baumann discloses the anti-fog protective mask device as claimed in Claim 3.
Modified Baumann discloses wherein the low-density polyethylene has a density of 60 pores per inch.
Weiver discloses the density to be between 10 pores per inch to 80 pores per inch. (Column 8, lines 36 – 40)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Baumann to include wherein the low-density polyethylene has a density of 60 pores per inch as 10 pores per inch have large cell structures to allow the most flow and 80 pores per inch would have smaller cells and be more restrictive. This would give more control over how restrictive the foam would be. (Column 8, lines 36 – 40) For 60 pores per inch, this would mean it would have smaller cell structure and would allow more restrictive flow compared to 10 pores per inch.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann et al. (US 6354296 B1) in view of Weiser et al. (US 11510444 B1) & Scholz et al. (US 5873931 A) as claimed in claim 2, in further view of Votolato et al. (US 20210315291 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Baumann discloses the anti-fog protective mask device as claimed in Claim 2.
Modified Baumann discloses the low-density polyethylene (as claimed in claim 2).
Modified Baumann does not disclose treated with an anti-fog coating.
Votolato discloses a material having anti-fog coating. (Paragraph 0030)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Baumann to include treated with an anti-fog coating as it would quickly clear condensation from the surface of the face shield allowing the user to maintain clear vision through the face shield. (Paragraph 0030)
Claim(s) 13 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann et al. (US 6354296 B1) in view of Weiser et al. (US 11510444 B1) & Scholz et al. (US 5873931 A) as claimed in claim 3, in further view of Votolato et al. (US 20210315291 A1)
Regarding claim 13, Modified Baumann discloses the anti-fog protective mask device as claimed in Claim 3.
Modified Baumann discloses the low-density polyethylene and ethylene-vinyl acetate (as claimed in claim 3)
Modified Baumann does not disclose treated with an anti-fog coating.
Votolato discloses a material having anti-fog coating. (Paragraph 0030)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Baumann to include treated with an anti-fog coating as it would quickly clear condensation from the surface of the face shield allowing the user to maintain clear vision through the face shield. (Paragraph 0030)
Regarding claim 14, Modified Baumann discloses the anti-fog protective mask device as claimed in Claim 3.
Modified Baumann discloses the ethylene-vinyl acetate (as claimed in claim 3) Modified Baumann does not disclose treated with an anti-fog coating.
Votolato discloses a material having anti-fog coating. (Paragraph 0030)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Baumann to include treated with an anti-fog coating as it would quickly clear condensation from the surface of the face shield allowing the user to maintain clear vision through the face shield. (Paragraph 0030)
Claim(s) 15 & 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann et al. (US 6354296 B1) in view of Weiser et al. (US 11510444 B1) as claimed in claim 1, in further view of Teng et al. (US 20140326255 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Baumann discloses the anti-fog protective mask device as claimed in Claim 1.
Modified Baumann discloses wherein the securing apparatus 21 is affixed to the protective mask 10 along the side portion 20 of the protective mask 10 wherein the securing mechanism 21 (Column 3, lines 52 – 56).
Modified Baumann does not disclose the straps configured to fit around the ears of the user.
Teng discloses the straps configured to fit around the ears of the user. (Paragraph 0037)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify the securing apparatus of Baumann to have the straps configured to fit around the ears of the user as it would be an obvious change to the straps as it is considered another way to have the straps be secured on the user’s face. This change to the securing apparatus would not change the overall function of the mask as it is considered an embodiment of the device. (Paragraph 0037)
Regarding claim 19, Modified Baumann discloses the anti-fog protective mask device as claimed in Claim 15.
Modified Baumann does not disclose wherein the anti-fog barrier is removably affixed to the protective mask.
Weiser discloses wherein the anti-fog barrier is removably affixed to the protective mask. (Column 6, lines 41 – 57)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Baumann to include wherein the anti-fog barrier is removably affixed to the protective mask by means of an adhesive as it would make it simple to selectively and removably apply the anti-fog strip to any facial mask or covering. (Column 6, lines 51 – 57)
Regarding claim 20, Modified Baumann discloses the anti-fog protective mask device as claimed in Claim 19.
Modified Baumann discloses wherein the anti-fog barrier is removably affixed to the protective mask. (as claimed in claim 19)
Modified Baumann does not disclose by means of an adhesive.
Weiser discloses by means of an adhesive. (Column 7, lines 45 – 49)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Baumann to have the anti-fog barrier bring affixed by means of an adhesive as it would prevent the anti-fog from inadvertently detaching or decoupling from the facial mask or covering during use and when at rest. (Column 7, lines 64 – 67)
Claim(s) 16 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann et al. (US 6354296 B1) in view of Weiser et al. (US 11510444 B1) & Teng et al. (US 20140326255) as claimed in claim 15, in further view of Lewis et al. (US 11083231 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Baumann discloses the anti-fog protective mask device as claimed in Claim 15.
Modified Baumann discloses the securing apparatus 21. (as claimed in claim 1)
Modified Baumann does not disclose elastic straps.
Lewis discloses elastic straps 20. (Column 5, lines 5 – 15)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify the security apparatus of Baumann to include elastic straps as it would allow the straps to be fitted around and behind the wearer’s ears with slight tension that urges the mask into suitable contact with the wearer’s face. (Column 5, lines 5 – 15)
Regarding claim 17, Modified Baumann discloses the anti-fog protective mask device as claimed in Claim 16.
Modified Baumann discloses wherein the anti-fog barrier 22 & 12 is securely affixed to the protective mask 10. (Column 6, first and second paragraph)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann et al. (US 6354296 B1) in view of Weiser et al. (US 11510444 B1), Teng et al. (US 20140326255) & Lewis et al. (US 11083231 B1) as claimed in claim 17, in further view of Nolan et al. (US 20210337896 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Modified Baumann discloses the anti-fog protective mask device as claimed in Claim 17.
Modified Baumann does not disclose the anti-fog material is sewn onto to the protective mask.
Nolan discloses the anti-fog material 1 is sewn onto to the protective mask. (Paragraph 0033)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Baumann to include wherein the anti-fog material is sewn onto to the protective mask as it would allow the material to be permanently attached to the face mask. (Paragraph 0033)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 CST.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at 571-272-9034. 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.
/GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS/
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785