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 without traverse of Species II, Fig. 6-8, in the reply filed on 11/03/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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:
“child-proof securing arrangement” in claim 1. For examination purposes, “child-proof securing arrangement” has been interpretated as “a locking-pin style connection, such as those used for retail security tags for clothing, a magnetic connection, or a snap-fit connection” or any structural equivalent thereof based on the Specification (see Specification pg. 2-3).
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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang (KR 20220132125).
Regarding claim 1, Jang teaches a detachable pacifier arrangement (see Fig. 5-6) comprising: a nipple portion (42) being configured to be sucked on by a child; a handle portion (47) being configured to be connected to said nipple portion and grasped by a child or an adult; and a child-proof securing arrangement (the securing arrangement formed by elastic protrusion 48 and coupling hole 44 is considered a child-proof securing arrangement as interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112f since the arrangement is a snap fit connection, see attached translated document pg. 16) being configured and disposed to detachably connect said nipple portion to said handle portion to releasably clamp said nipple portion and said handle portion together onto opposing sides of a panel of an object (12) to be placed near a mouth of a child (the mask 12 is configured to cover the mouth and nose of an infant, see Abstract on pg. 13 of attached translated document).
Regarding claim 2, Jang teaches the detachable pacifier arrangement of claim 1, wherein: said child-proof securing arrangement comprises a securing pin (48) disposed partially in and to project out beyond said handle portion (see Fig. 5); said child-proof securing arrangement comprises a pin receptacle (44) disposed in said nipple portion and configured and disposed to receive and engage with said securing pin in a releasable, locking manner; and said securing pin is configured to be releasably locked with said pin receptacle (the protrusion 48 is detachably coupled to the coupling hole, see Abstract on pg. 13 of attached translated document).
Regarding claim 3, Jang teaches the detachable pacifier arrangement of claim 2, wherein said securing pin comprises a crosspiece (the elastic protrusion 48 is considered to be a crosspiece since it comprises a portion that extends transverse to the longitudinal direction of the protrusion, see Fig. 5) configured to engage with said pin receptacle in a releasable, locking manner.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Jang further teaches said nipple portion comprises a shoulder (the wall around the coupling hole is considered a shoulder, see Fig. 5) disposed about said pin receptacle (44); said handle portion comprises a recess (the space between the pressing protrusion 49 and the elastic protrusion 49 forms a recess, see annotated Fig. 6 below) disposed about said securing pin and configured to receive said shoulder in a form fit or friction fit to further secure said nipple portion and said handle portion together on a panel of an object to be placed near a mouth of a child (the handle portion and nipple portion attach to each other in a snap fit connection, see attached translated document pg. 16); and said shoulder and said recess are configured and disposed to clamp and temporarily deform the panel of the object to be placed near a mouth of a child therebetween (the shoulder and recess are capable of deforming an object placed in between them).
PNG
media_image1.png
516
293
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Jang further teaches said receptacle comprises a projection disposed to project out from said shoulder (there is a projection extending inward of the shoulder, see annotated Fig. 6); said handle portion comprises a projection receptacle (the reduced diameter portion of the elastic protrusion 48 forms a projection receptacle since it traps the projection between the larger diameter section and the plate 46, see annotated Fig. 6) disposed about said securing pin and configured to receive said projection in a form fit or friction fit to further secure said nipple portion and said handle portion together on a panel of an object to be placed near a mouth of a child (the handle portion and nipple portion attach to each other in a snap fit connection, see attached translated document pg. 16); and said projection and said projection receptacle are configured and disposed to clamp and temporarily deform the panel of the object to be placed near a mouth of a child therebetween (the shoulder and recess are capable of deforming an object placed in between them).
Regarding claims 8, 12, 14 and 16, Jang further teaches the detachable pacifier arrangement of in combination with a protective face (12, see Fig. 1 and 5) covering to form a pacifying personal protective device, which protective face covering comprises a panel configured to be positioned over at least a mouth and a nose of a child to reduce transmission of pathogens between the child and persons proximate to the child (the mask covers the mouth and nose of a user and prevents the inhalation of pathogens, see attached translated document pg. 14 and Abstract on pg. 13).
Regarding claim 9, Jang further teaches said protective face covering comprises a fastener (14) engaged to said panel and configured to removably engage said panel to a head of a child in a position over at least the mouth and the nose of the child.
Regarding claims 11, 13, 15 and 17, Jang further teaches said panel comprises a mask made of cloth or fabric (the mask is made of cloth or non-woven fabric, see attached translated document pg. 15); and said mask comprises an aperture (16, see Fig. 5) therein having a diameter similar to the outer diameter of said shoulder to permit removable attachment of said detachable pacifier arrangement to said mask with said nipple portion disposed on the interior of said mask and said handle portion disposed on the exterior of said mask (see Fig. 6).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Wall (US 2023/0078297).
Regarding claim 10, Jang teaches the detachable pacifier arrangement in combination with said protective face covering of claim 9 , but fails to teach said panel comprises a face shield made of plastic; and said face shield comprises an aperture therein having a diameter similar to the outer diameter of said shoulder to permit removable attachment of said detachable pacifier arrangement to said face shield with said nipple portion disposed on the interior of said face shield and said handle portion disposed on the exterior of said face shield.
Wall, in the same field of art, teaches a similar arrangement (see Fig. 1-2) with a pacifier arrangement (B, D) in combination with a protective face covering (A), where the panel of the protective face covering is a face shield made of plastic (see [0010]) and said face shield comprises an aperture (E) for permitting attachment of the pacifier arrangement (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the protective face covering of Jang with the protective face covering of Wall since doing so would have yielded only predictable results, namely, the protective face covering of Wall in arrangement of Jang would have would have provided a user with protection against pathogens.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
All of the documents cited in the attached PTO-892 teach related pacifier and child-proof securing arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SERENITY MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1155. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5pm.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at (571)272-7134. 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.
/SERENITY A MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/ELIZABETH HOUSTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3771