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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 12/30/2025. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 16, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31 and 34 have been amended, claims 20-22, 28, 33 have been cancelled, and claims 35-40 have been added. As such, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 16, 23-27, 29-31 and 34-40 are pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as it was applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4, 27 and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 1 should read “wherein the mask is configured such that any gas” to make it clearer that a method step is not being recited in an apparatus claim
Claim 3, line 1 should read “wherein the mask is configured such that any gas” to make it clearer that a method step is not being recited in an apparatus claim
Claim 27, line 2 should read “the venting portions”
Claim 40, there is an extra space and second comma after the preamble that should be deleted
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 25 be found allowable, claim 34 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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, 4, 5, 16, 23-27, 29-31 and 34-40 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.
Regarding claim 1 (and thus its dependent claims), the specification as originally filed does not support “one or more venting portions” because it only discloses a single venting portion 302 [Note: the specification as originally filed do support one or more venting slots 308, which are located in the venting portion 302. Moreover, even if both areas comprising slots 306, 308 are each considered a “venting portion,” the mask would then require two such “venting portions” to function as disclosed, not “one or more”]. The specification as originally filed also does not support venting portions/slots “configured to guide gas out of the mask in a second direction that is different than a first direction in which gas entering the mask flows” because the gas flows/is guided into and out of the mask via the same pathway, i.e. in and out of aligned slots 306/308, see e.g. para [0051]: “aligning the slots 308 with venting slots 306 may allow air to flow from exterior of mask 101 to an interior of mask 101 and to filter 204, for example, as the user inhales…aligning the slots 308 with venting slots 306 may allow air to flow from inside mask 101 to filter 204 and out of mask 101 via the aligned slots 308 and venting slots 306, for example, as the user exhales.” [Note: the previous limitations regarding the guiding of gas were supported because the gas flows/is guided into the slots 306/308 in a different direction than it flows/is guided into the base/through central openings 305/311/that of coupler 205, i.e. gas flowing both in and out follows an L-shape.] The specification as originally filed also does not support “wherein the one or more venting portions are positioned on the first surface of the base.” The venting portion 302 is positioned on the coupler 205 (instant Figs. 3 and 4A, para [0044]), not the base 203, and it is positioned apart from the base because the coupler is attached to the adapter 201, not to the base. As such, the amendments to claim 1 introduce new matter.
Regarding claim 5, the specification as originally filed does not disclose the coupler including a center portion “that is received by a recessed area of the adapter.” The only disclosed recessed area of the adapter is recessed portion 310, which receives filter 204, see e.g. instant Fig. 3 and paras [0041] and [0046], not coupler 205; as such, amended claim 5 contains new matter.
Regarding claim 16 (and thus its dependent claims), the specification as originally filed does not support “venting portions” (plural) because it only discloses a single venting portion 302 [Note: the specification as originally filed do support one or more venting slots 308, which are located in the venting portion. Moreover, even if both areas comprising slots 306, 308 are each considered a “venting portion,” neither is positioned on a surface of the base portion, as one is positioned on adapter 201 and one is positioned on coupler 205]. The specification as originally filed does not support “venting portions positioned on a surface of the base portion.” The venting portion 302 is positioned on the coupler 205 (instant Figs. 3 and 4A, para [0044]), not the base 203, and it is positioned apart from the base because the coupler is attached to the adapter 201, not to the base. The specification as orinally filed also does not support venting portions/slots “configured to guide gas out of the base portion in a second direction that is different than a first direction in which gas entering the base portion flows” because the gas flows/is guided into and out of the base portion via the same pathway, i.e. through aligned central openings 305/311/that of coupler 205, see e.g. para [0051]: “aligning the slots 308 with venting slots 306 may allow air to flow from exterior of mask 101 to an interior of mask 101 and to filter 204 [i.e. through central openings 305/311/that of coupler 205], for example, as the user inhales…aligning the slots 308 with venting slots 306 may allow air to flow from inside mask 101 to filter 204 [i.e. through central openings 305/311/that of coupler 205] and out of mask 101 via the aligned slots 308 and venting slots 306, for example, as the user exhales.” [Note: the previous limitations regarding the guiding of gas were supported because the gas flows/is guided into the slots 306/308/mask as a whole in a different direction than it flows/is guided into the base/through central openings 305/311/that of coupler 205, i.e. gas flowing both in and out follows an L-shape.] As such, the amendments to claim 16 introduce new matter.
Regarding claim 24, the specification as originally filed only discloses filter 204 in recessed portion 310 of the adapter 201, wherein it is unclear in light of instant Figs. 2-3 how far through opening 305 recessed portion 310 is positioned relative to the base, such that it is unclear if the recessed portion/filter can necessarily be considered “provided in the base,” as inherent support for the new language. Applicant could address this rejection by amending claim 24 to read “provided in the adapter”.
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 4 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.
Regarding claim 4, claim 1 recites the first direction as the direction in which gas enters the mask; therefore, it is unclear how gas flowing into the mask can flow “along the second surface,” because the second surface is understood to be inside surface of the mask in light of the instant specification and mask entering hasn’t reached this surface yet, and it is unclear how gas traveling in the first direction can be “along…in the second direction” when the first and second directions are different per claim 1 and further required to be “about orthogonal” in claim 4. For purposes of examination, as best understood, claim 4 will be considered to recite that the first and second directions are “about orthogonal” to each other.
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: “a coupling mechanism” in claim 16 (and thus its dependent claims), and “retention elements” in claims 39 and 40.
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. A “coupling mechanism” according to claim 16 is understood to correspond to the (third) opening through coupler 205 that allows coupler 205 to fit over adapter 201 and sandwich base 203 therebetween per e.g. instant Fig. 3 and para [0045]. “Retention elements” according to claims 39-40 are understood to correspond to the strings, bands, straps and threaded knobs of para [0036].
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 § 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.
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.
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, 2, 4, 5, 16, 23, 25, 27, 29-31 and 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (US 2004/0069302 A1; hereinafter “Wilson”) in view of Baker et al. (US 2017/0021203 A1; hereinafter “Baker”).
Regarding claim 1, Wilson discloses a wearable face covering (Figs. 19-20) comprising:
a mask including:
a base (facepiece 2) including a first surface (outer surface) and a second surface (inner surface) opposite the first surface; and
an adapter (bayonet fitting 5A) including a coupling surface (the tubular outer surface of bayonet fitting 5A),
a coupler (apertured disc 53) (Fig. 20) including one or more coupler arms (support 51), wherein the coupler is removably coupled to the coupling surface of the adapter (Fig. 20; para [0102]);
a face shield (visor portion 52) removably connected (via slot 84) to the coupler (Figs. 20-21; paras [0102-103]), wherein the face shield covers at least a portion of the base of the mask (the upper portion seen in Fig. 20); and
one or more venting portions (comprised by the exhalation vent positioned in the central opening in Figs. 19-20, as would have been understood/obvious to include to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the standard mask structure depicted by Wilson, see e.g. Baker Figs. 6-7, to provide the predictable result of controlled airflow through the mask) configured to guide gas out of the mask in a second direction that is different than a first direction in which gas entering the mask flows (see Baker Figs. 6-7, where gas would flow in a similar pattern in the mask of Wilson, i.e. in from the directions of the sides and out from the front direction), wherein the one or more venting portions are positioned on the first surface of the base (Wilson Fig. 19, where the exhalation vent is positioned on the outer surface of the front of the facepiece).
Wilson is silent regarding the adapter positioned on the second (inside) surface of the mask. However, Baker teaches that it was known in the face respiratory art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a mask including a bayonet adapter similar to that of Wilson (Baker Figs. 6-9) to have the adapter (bayonet tube 112) positioned on the second (inside) surface of the mask (Baker Figs. 8 and 9; bayonet tube 112 clips from the inside of the oral-nasal unit 14, paras [0063-64]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wilson to include the adapter positioned on the second (inside) surface of the mask as taught by Baker, in order to utilize a well-known construction (flanged bayonet adapter that feeds through the mask body from the inside) to predictably and securely mount the filter-receiving bayonet adapter on the mask body.
Regarding claim 2, Wilson in view of Baker teaches the wearable face covering of claim 1, wherein Baker further educates modified Wilson to include wherein any gas flowing in the first direction does not flow through an opening through the base (see Baker Fig. 6, where gas enters the filter cartridge in a different direction than when it finally flows through the corresponding opening of the base), in order to utilize a known low-profile cartridge configuration (i.e. one with the inlet offset from the outlet) for ease of sourcing and/or to provide a longer filtration path through the filter.
Regarding claim 4, Wilson in view of Baker teaches the wearable face covering of claim 1, wherein Wilson further discloses wherein, as best understood, the second direction is about orthogonal to the first direction (see e.g. Baker Fig. 6 in view of Wilson Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 5, Wilson in view of Baker teaches the wearable face covering of claim 1, wherein modified Wilson further discloses/teaches wherein: the coupler includes a center portion (the aperture through disc 53) that is received by a recessed area of the adapter (Wilson Fig. 20 in view of Baker’s teaching of an inner retaining flange on the adapter, because the tubular portion of the flanged bayonet fitting on which disc 53 is mounted can be considered a recessed area as compared to the flange).
Regarding claim 16, Wilson discloses a protection system (Figs. 19-20) comprising:
a base portion (facepiece 2) configured to cover a mouth of a user and a nose of the user when worn by the user (paras [0069] and [0122]);
an adapter (bayonet fitting 5A) including a coupling surface (the tubular outer surface of bayonet fitting 5A), the adapter positioned on the base portion (Fig. 20);
a protective shield (visor portion 52);
(apertured disc 53) (Fig. 20) comprising one or more coupler arms (support 51) and a coupling mechanism (the aperture through disc 53), each arm of the one or more arms configured to connect to the protective shield (Fig. 20; para [0102]), wherein the coupling mechanism is configured to removably attach the coupler to the coupling surface of the adapter (Fig. 20; para [0102]); and
venting portions (comprised by the exhalation vent positioned in the central opening in Figs. 19-20, as would have been understood/obvious to include to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the standard mask structure depicted by Wilson, see e.g. Baker Figs. 6-7, to provide the predictable result of controlled airflow through the mask) positioned on a surface of the base portion (Wilson Fig. 19, where the exhalation vent is positioned on the outer surface of the front of the facepiece), wherein the venting portions are configured to guide gas out of the base portion in a second direction that is different than a first direction in which gas entering the base portion flows (see Baker Figs. 6-7, where gas would flow in a similar pattern in the mask of Wilson, i.e. in from the directions of the sides and out from the front direction),
wherein the protective shield covers the surface of the base portion on which the venting portions are positioned (visor portion 52 covers (the upper portion of) the outer surface of the base portion as seen in Fig. 20).
Wilson is silent regarding wherein the venting portions are positioned on a surface that is opposite a surface on which the adapter is positioned. However, Baker teaches that it was known in the face respiratory art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a mask including a bayonet adapter similar to that of Wilson (Baker Figs. 6-9) to have the adapter (bayonet tube 112) positioned on the opposite (inside) surface of the mask from the outer surface (Baker Figs. 8 and 9; bayonet tube 112 clips from the inside of the oral-nasal unit 14, paras [0063-64]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wilson to include the adapter positioned on the second (inside) surface of the mask as taught by Baker, such that the venting portions are positioned on a surface that is opposite a surface on which the adapter is positioned, in order to utilize a well-known construction (flanged bayonet adapter that feeds through the mask body from the inside) to predictably and securely mount the filter-receiving bayonet adapter on the mask body.
Regarding claim 23, Wilson in view of Baker teaches the wearable face covering of claim 1, wherein Wilson further discloses a filter (filter cartridges 5) configured to filter gas (Fig. 19; para [0102]).
Regarding claims 25 and 34, Wilson in view of Baker teaches the wearable face covering of claim 1, wherein Wilson further discloses wherein the face shield is configured to be secured to a user without any direct attachment to a head of the user (Figs. 19-20; para [0102]), where the visor is fully supported by the mask body.
Regarding claim 27, Wilson in view of Baker teaches the protection system of claim 16, wherein Wilson further discloses wherein [the] venting portions are configured to direct airflow in a manner that reduces or prevents fogging of the protective shield (the venting portions of the exhalation valve direct airflow toward the front of the user, i.e. in a direction away from the visor portion 52, which thus reduces or prevents fogging of the visor portion because exhaled air is not directed onto it).
Regarding claim 29, Wilson in view of Baker teaches the protection system of claim 16, wherein Wilson further discloses wherein the protective shield is configured to inhibit air particulates or debris from contacting a face of the user (Fig. 20, where, as piece of polymeric material, see para [0102], the visor portion 52 is a physical barrier to particulate or debris approaching from the front of the face of the user).
Regarding claim 30, Wilson in view of Baker teaches the protection system of claim 16, wherein Wilson further discloses wherein the one or more arms of the coupler are directly attached to the protective shield (Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 31, Wilson in view of Baker teaches the protection system of claim 16, wherein Wilson further suggests wherein the coupler is configured to removably attach the protective shield to the base portion via friction (Fig. 20; para [0102]), because each disc 53 is suggested to friction fit to the associated adapter/bayonet fitting 5A on the base portion, in order to predictably hold the discs in place on the adapters/bayonet fitting 5A to keep the supports 51 directed in the desired positions.
Regarding claim 35, Wilson in view of Baker teaches the wearable face covering of claim 1, wherein Wilson further suggests/teaches and Baker further teaches wherein the one or more venting portions comprises a plurality of slots (see the slotted openings around the exhalation valve of Wilson Fig. 19, and see also the slots of the exhalation valve of Wilson Fig. 4; slots of the exhalation valve of Baker seen in Figs. 5 and 7-9), in order to provide the predictable result of sufficient exhalation area for exhaust.
Regarding claim 36, Wilson in view of Baker teaches the protection system of claim 16, wherein Wilson further suggests/teaches and Baker further teaches wherein the venting portions comprise slots (see the slotted openings around the exhalation valve of Wilson Fig. 19, and see also the slots of the exhalation valve of Wilson Fig. 4; slots of the exhalation valve of Baker seen in Figs. 5 and 7-9), in order to provide the predictable result of sufficient exhalation area for exhaust.
Regarding claim 37, Wilson in view of Baker teaches the wearable face covering of claim 1, wherein Wilson further teaches and Baker further teaches wherein the one or more venting portions comprises at least two venting portions substantially parallel to one another (see the slots of the exhalation valve of Wilson Fig. 4; slots of the exhalation valve of Baker seen in Figs. 5 and 7-9), in order to provide the predictable result of sufficient exhalation area for exhaust using a known configuration/distribution for the openings.
Regarding claim 38, Wilson in view of Baker teaches the protection system of claim 16, wherein Wilson further teaches and Baker further teaches wherein the venting portions comprise at least two slots substantially parallel to one another (see the slots of the exhalation valve of Wilson Fig. 4; slots of the exhalation valve of Baker seen in Figs. 5 and 7-9), in order to provide the predictable result of sufficient exhalation area for exhaust using a known configuration/distribution for the openings.
Regarding claim 39, Wilson in view of Baker teaches the wearable face covering of claim 1, wherein Wilson further discloses further comprising one or more retention elements (headbands 7 and cradle 9) configured to releasably secure the base to a head of a user (para [0102]).
Regarding claim 40, Wilson in view of Baker teaches the protection system of claim 16, wherein Wilson further discloses further comprising retention elements (headbands 7 and cradle 9) configured to releasably secure the base portion to a head of a user (para [0102]).
Claim(s) 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of Baker as applied to claim 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Cameno Salinas et al. (US 2023/144471 A1; hereinafter “Salinas”).
Regarding claim 24, Wilson in view of Baker teaches the wearable face covering of claim 1, wherein Wilson further discloses a filter (filter cartridges 5) configured to filter gas (Fig. 19; para [0102]), but modified Wilson is silent regarding but modified Wilson is silent regarding wherein the filter is provided in the base. However, Salinas teaches that it was known in the filtered face mask art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to filter both incoming and outgoing air (para [0017]), such that it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a filter in the base before the exhalation valve of Wilson so as to filter exhaled air as taught by Salinas, in order to provide the predictable result of filter exhaled air to reduce pollution of the ambient environment by the user.
Regarding claim 26, Wilson in view of Baker teaches the protection system of claim 16, wherein Wilson further discloses a filter (filter cartridges 5) configured to filter gas (Fig. 19; para [0102]), but modified Wilson is silent regarding wherein the filter comprises a polypropylene-based non-woven fabric configured to filter air particulates. However, it has been held to be within the general skill of one in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, see MPEP 2144.07, and Salinas teaches that it was known in the filtered face mask art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the filter comprises a polypropylene-based non-woven fabric configured to filter air particulates (para [0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Wilson to include wherein the filter comprises a polypropylene-based non-woven fabric configured to filter air particulates as taught by Salinas, in order to provide the predictable result of a suitable, known filter material for providing the filtering function disclosed by Wilson.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHRYN E DITMER whose telephone number is (571)270-5178. The examiner can normally be reached M 7:30a-3:30p, T/Th 8:30a-2:30p, W 11:30a-4:30p, F 1-4p ET.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/KATHRYN E DITMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785