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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the election filed 5/19/26. In the response, applicant has elected Species 2 without traverse (claims 1-28 and 45-54). Thus, claims 1-54 are pending in the application, with claims 29-44 withdrawn from consideration.
Priority
2. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for benefit of priority for 63/397,131 (filing date of 08/11/2022) which claims benefit of 18/447,498 (filing date of 08/10/2023). 63/397,131 provides sufficient support for the subject matter of claims 1-44. Therefore, the current application will be assigned the effective filing date of 08/11/2022.
Claim Interpretation- 35 USC § 112 – Sixth Paragraph/35 USC § 112(f)
3. 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.
At present, no claims are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 25 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. Specifically:
The phrase “the filter support element” (In 2 & 3) is relative or imprecise term that fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. The parent claims recite a “filter support structure,” whereas “support elements” are separately recited in claim 18 as components of the filter support structure. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the recited “filter support element” refers to previously recited filter support structure, a support element, or another element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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 8 and 11 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. Specifically:
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear whether the recited “cushion attachment surface” (In 2), “facemask” (In 2), and “mask body” are required by claim. Claim 8 ultimately depends from claim 1, which is directed to a cushion, but subsequently recites that “the convex portion extends substantially parallel to a plane, formed from a cushion attachment surface of a mask body of a facemask, when the facemask is not in use,” without positively introducing the cushion attachment surface, mask body, or facemask as components of the claimed cushion. Therefore, it is unclear whether the cushion attachment surface, mask body, and facemask are required by the claim or merely provide a frame of reference for defining the orientation of the convex portion. For purposes of examination, claim 8 will be interpreted as introducing and requiring the cushion attachment surface, mask body, and facemask as part of the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear whether the recited “flexible rim” (In 2), “facemask” (In 2), and “mask body” are required by claim. Claim 8 ultimately depends from claim 1, which is directed to a cushion, but subsequently recites that “the convex portion extends substantially parallel to a cross-section of a flexible rim, of a mask body of a facemask, when the facemask is not in use,” without positively introducing the flexible rim, mask body, or facemask as components of the claimed cushion. Therefore, it is unclear whether the flexible rim, mask body, and facemask are required by the claim or merely provide a frame of reference for defining the orientation of the convex portion. For purposes of examination, claim 8 will be interpreted as introducing and requiring the flexible rim, mask body, and facemask as part of the claimed structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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 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.
7. Claims 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (WO2022122976)
Regarding claim 1, Miller discloses a cushion (25) of a facemask (FIG. 1) comprising: a perimeter sealing portion configured to make a perimeter seal of a user above a mentolabial crease of a user (27;28) and a convex portion (26) extending from a bottom portion of the cushion and partway to a top portion of the cushion, wherein the convex portion is configured to contact a user's chin and facilitate a surface seal between the cushion and the user's face (Miller discloses a cushion for a facemask comprising a perimeter sealing portion configured to form a seal with the face of a user, the sealing portion including nasal, cheek, and chin regions. Miller further teaches a chin region comprising a face-contacting portion configured to engage the chin of the user, wherein the chin-contacting portion includes a convex portions extending from a bottom portion of the cushion and is configured to curve and extend under the chin of the user, thereby facilitating a seal between the cushion and the user’s face). See Annotated FIG 7 Below; see also disclosure describing the sealing member, chin region, and outwardly depending lip/chin- cup configuration. Miller expressly teaches configuring the sealing member for engagement with the wearer’s chin, including a chin portion that may extend under the chin and form a chin cup for accommodating the wearer’s chin. Thus, the user and that the convex portion contacts the user’s chin below the mentolabial crease.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Miller’s disclosed convex chin-engaging sealing portion with Bietz perimeter seal is formed above the mentolabial crease and the convex portion contacts the chin below the mentolabial crease, as such positioning of Miller’s disclosed sealing structure relative to the anatomical contours of the wearer’s chin and facilitate the facial seal taught by Miller.
PNG
media_image1.png
462
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Miller discloses the cushion (25) of claim 1, further comprising a bottom portion configured to extend below the user's chin (Miller discloses the convex portion is configured to contact the user’s chin, wherein the proximal portion of the outwardly depending lip portion may engage the chin of the wearer, while a distal portion curves and extends under the chin of the wearer, and the outwardly depending lip formation may be shaped in the form of a chin cup configured to accommodate at least a portion of the users chin [Miller, page 21, 13]). See annotated FIG. 7 Above.
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Miller discloses the cushion (25) of claim 1, wherein the convex portion has a height of about 0.6 inches to about 0.9 inches (Miller discloses the chin region/convex region outwardly depending lip of the chin region extending between 5 mm and 20 mm from the distal edge of the first portion, which is within the claimed range of about 0.6 inches to about 0.9 inches [Miller, page 16, 18]).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Miller discloses the cushion (25) of claim 1, wherein the convex portion extends substantially parallel to a plane, formed from a cushion attachment surface of a mask body of a facemask, when the facemask is not in use (Miller discloses the sealing member/cushion (25) extending from and being fixed to the peripheral edge of the support frame of the mask body. As illustrated in FIG. 7, the outwardly depending lip forming the convex portion extends laterally from the peripheral attachment region of the mask body such that, in the unused configuration shown, the convex portion extends substantially parallel to a plane defined by the cushion attachment surface). See Annotated FIG. 7 Below.
PNG
media_image2.png
462
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Miller discloses the cushion (25) of claim 1, wherein the convex portion is configured to bend and extend away from a plane, formed from a cushion attachment surface of a mask body of a facemask, when convex portion is acted upon by the user's chin, wherein the bending of the convex portion facilitates creation and maintenance of the surface seal between the cushion and the user's face (As illustrated in FIG. 7 the sealing member/cushion 25 includes a convex portion in the chin region extending outwardly from the peripheral attachment region of the mask body. Miller further discloses that the sealing member may be formed of an elastomeric material and may form a resiliently compressible cushion between the support frame and the wearer’s face, thereby permitting the cushion to deform/bend when acted upon by the wearer’s face inches [Miller, page 11, 16]. Miller further teaches that movement of the wearer’s jaw, including vertical movement of the chin, occurs during use and that flexibility of the sealing member facilitates maintaining an effective seal during facial movement [Miller, page 12, 19]. Therefore, when the user’s chin acts upon the convex portion shown in FIG. 7, the resiliently compressible convex portion bends relative to and extends away from the plane of the cushion attachment surface, thereby facilitating creation and maintenance of the surface seal between the cushion and the user’s face).
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Miller discloses the cushion (25) of claim 9, wherein the convex portion is configured to bend up to perpendicular with respect to the plane (Miller discloses that the sealing member/cushion (25) is resiliently compressible and configured to deform in response to engagement with and movement of the wearer’s face, including movement jaw/chin region, while maintaining a seal. Miller further discloses a chin-region configuration in which a downwardly depending seal-supporting member extends outwardly from the support frame in a direction substantially perpendicular thereto, thereby supporting the sealing member in the chin region and maintaining the seal [Miller, page 7, 11]. Thus, Miller teaches a flexible/deformable chin sealing portion capable of bending from its unloaded orientation toward a substantially perpendicular orientation relative to the support-frame/attachment plane during use).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 of this title, 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.
9. Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (WO2022122976)
Regarding claims 4-7, Miller discloses the facemask (FIG. 7) and cushion (25) of claim 1, including a convex portion formed on the chin region of the cushion. Miller further discloses the general dimensional relationship between the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the convex portion and the distance between portions of the facemask [Miller, page 13, 6], wherein the dimensional relationship disclosed by Miller is within a range of approximately 20% to 40%.
Miller does not expressly disclose the particular claimed values wherein the vertical height of the convex portion is a maximum of about 40% or about 20%, or a minimum of about 12% or about 25%, of the distance between the bottom and top portions of the cushion, as recited claims 4-7.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the relative vertical height of the convex portion with respect to the distance between the bottom and top portions of Miller’s cushion through routine experimentation to obtain a suitable dimensional relationship for the cushion. Miller teaches the general conditions and dimensional relationships, which are encompassing the claimed configuration, and determining an optimum or workable value within or adjacent to the dimensional relationship would have involved no more than routine optimization. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to select and/or optimize the dimensional relationship of Miller’s convex portion to arrive at the claimed maximum and minimum percentages recited in claim 4-7. See Routine Optimization. MPEP 2144.06(II)(A
10. Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (WO2022122976) in view of Bietz (20220323799)
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Miller discloses the cushion (25) of claim 1, wherein the convex portion extends substantially parallel to a cross-section of a mask body of a facemask, when the facemask is not in use (Miller discloses that the sealing member/cushion (25) and support frame (21) (24) is resiliently compressible and configured to deform in response to engagement with and movement of the wearer’s face, including movement jaw/chin region, while maintaining a seal. Thereby permitting the cushion in the chin region forms the claimed convex portion and, in the unused configuration, extends substantially parallel to cross-section of the peripheral portion of the cushion. As illustrated in FIG. 7, the outwardly depending lip forming the convex portion extends laterally from the peripheral attachment region of the mask body such that, in the unused configuration shown, the convex portion extends substantially parallel to a plane defined by the cushion attachment surface. Accordingly, Miller’s resiliently compressible/deformable cushion constitutes the claimed flexible rim under a broadest interpretation of the claim). See Annotated FIG. 7 Below.
Alternatively, to the extent the claimed “flexible rim” is interpreted as requiring a flexible peripheral portion of the mask distinct from Miller’s resiliently compressible cushion, Bietz discloses a facemask having a mask body (Bietz, 1) with an outer edge perimeter (52) extending about the periphery of the mask body and configured to form a seal about the user’s nose and mouth. Bietz further discloses that the peripheral sealing structure may comprise elongated, flexible, thin-walled portions having increased material flexibility, and may further include an outboard flexible seal (194) disposed at the outer edge perimeter (52) for augmenting the face-seal interface with the user [0023-0024; 0126; 0143]; See FIGS. 15-16.
Therefore, under this alternative interpretation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the modified support frame/rim of Miller to incorporate the flexible rim taught by Bietz, because Bietz teaches that providing increased flexibility on the mask structure permits greater material flexibility and enhances sealing at the face-seal interface. Such modification would have predictably improved conformity of Miller’s peripheral cushion/support frame assembly to the user’s face and facilitated maintenance of an effective seal during use. Thus, the modified device of Miller in view of Bietz would have the convex portion extending substantially parallel to a cross-section of the flexible peripheral rim when the facemask is not in use.
PNG
media_image2.png
462
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Miller discloses the cushion (25) of claim 1, wherein the convex portion (26) is configured to bend and extend away from parallel with respect to a cross-section of a flexible rim, of a mask body of a facemask, as the convex portion is acted upon by the user's chin, wherein the bending of the convex portion facilitates creation and maintenance of the surface seal between the cushion and the user's face. (As illustrated in FIG. 7 the sealing member/cushion (25) and support frame (21) (24) includes a convex portion in the chin region extending outwardly from the peripheral attachment region of the mask body. Miller further discloses that the sealing member may be formed of an elastomeric material and may form a resiliently compressible cushion between the support frame and the wearer’s face, thereby permitting the cushion to deform/bend when acted upon by the wearer’s face [Miller, page 11, 16]. Miller further teaches that movement of the wearer’s jaw, including vertical movement of the chin, occurs during use and that flexibility of the sealing member facilitates maintaining an effective seal during facial movement [Miller, page 12, 19]. Therefore, when the user’s chin acts upon the convex portion shown in FIG. 7, the resiliently compressible convex portion bends relative to and extends away from the plane of the cushion attachment surface, thereby facilitating creation and maintenance of the surface seal between the cushion and the user’s face).
Alternatively, to the extent the claimed “flexible rim” is interpreted as requiring a flexible peripheral portion of the mask distinct from Miller’s resiliently compressible cushion, Bietz discloses a facemask (Bietz, 1) having a mask body with an outer edge perimeter (52) extending about the periphery of the mask body and configured to form a seal about the user’s nose and mouth. Bietz further discloses that the peripheral sealing structure may comprise elongated, flexible, thin-walled portions having increased material flexibility, and may further include an outboard flexible seal (194) disposed at the outer edge perimeter (52) for augmenting the face-seal interface with the user [0023-0024; 0126; 0143] as discussed above; FIGS. 15-16.
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Miller discloses the cushion (25) of claim 12, wherein the convex portion (26) is configured to bend up to perpendicular with respect to the cross-section of the flexible rim (Miller discloses that the sealing member/cushion (25) is resiliently compressible and configured to deform in response to engagement with and movement of the wearer’s face, including movement jaw/chin region, while maintaining a seal. Miller further discloses a chin-region configuration in which a downwardly depending seal-supporting member extends outwardly from the support frame in a direction substantially perpendicular thereto, thereby supporting the sealing member in the chin region and maintaining the seal. Thus, Miller teaches a flexible/deformable chin sealing portion capable of bending from its unloaded orientation toward a substantially perpendicular orientation relative to the support-frame/attachment plane during use).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Miller discloses the cushion (25) of claim 1, wherein the convex portion (26) is configured to bend and extend toward a front of a mask body of a facemask as the convex portion is acted upon by the user's chin, wherein the bending of the convex portion facilitates creation and maintenance of the surface seal between the cushion and the user's face (Miller discloses that the sealing member/cushion (25) includes chin-engaging portion (26) and is formed of an elastomeric material providing a compressible region between the support frame and wearer’s face, thereby permitting the sealing member to conform to the contours and movement of the wearers face while maintaining seal [Miller, page 11, 16]. Miller further discloses that the chin region may include a downwardly depending seal-supporting member extending outwardly from the support frame in a direction substantially perpendicular thereto, which reinforces the sealing member in the chin region and assists in maintaining the seal [Miller, page 12, 19]. Thus, when the user’s chin acts upon the resiliently deformable convex-chin-engaging portion (26), the convex portion bends from its unloaded orientation toward the front of the mask body, with such deformation permitting the cushion to accommodate movement of the user’s chin while maintaining the surface seal). See Annotated FIG. 7 Above.
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Miller discloses the cushion (25) of claim 1, wherein the convex portion is configured to bend and extend into a cavity of a mask body of a facemask as the convex portion (26) is acted upon by the user's chin, wherein the bending of the convex portion facilitates creation and maintenance of the surface seal between the cushion and the user's face (Miller discloses an internal cavity formed within the mask body about the wearer’s face, including cavity portions formed around the cheeks, nose, and mouth. Miller further discloses that the sealing member/cushion (25) includes a chin engaging portion (26), is formed of an elastomeric material providing a compressible region between the support frame and wearer’s face and conforms to the contours and movement of the wearer’s face while maintaining a seal. Accordingly, when the user’s chin acts upon the resiliently deformable convex chin-engaging portion (26), the convex portion bends inwardly into the internal cavity defined by the mask body, thereby accommodating movement of the user’s chin and facilitating creation and maintenance of the surface seal between the cushion and the user’s face). See Annotated FIG. 7 Above.
11. Claims 16-20, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (WO2022122976) in view of Bietz (20220323799), as applied to the rejection of claim 11 above, and in further view of Jeong (20140216479).
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask (FIG. 7) comprising: a mask body comprising a cushion attachment surface and a flexible rim, wherein the flexible rim extends inwardly away from the cushion attachment surface, and wherein the mask body is flexible and resilient; the cushion of claim 1 coupled to the cushion attachment surface (Miller discloses facemask as illustrated in FIG. 7 the sealing member/cushion (25) configuration to the mask body. Miller further discloses that the sealing member may be formed of an elastomeric material and may form a resiliently compressible cushion between the support frame and the wearer’s face, thereby permitting the mask body to deform/bend when acted upon by the wearer’s face [Miller, page 11, 16]. Miller further teaches that movement of the wearer’s jaw, including vertical movement of the chin, occurs during use and that flexibility of the sealing member facilitates maintaining an effective seal during facial movement [Miller, page 12, 19]. Alternatively, to the extent the claimed “flexible rim” is interpreted as requiring a flexible peripheral portion of the mask distinct from Miller’s resiliently compressible cushion, Bietz discloses a facemask (Bietz, 1) having a mask body with an outer edge perimeter (52) extending about the periphery of the mask body and configured to form a seal about the user’s nose and mouth. Bietz further discloses that the peripheral sealing structure may comprise elongated, flexible, thin-walled portions having increased material flexibility, and may further include an outboard flexible seal (194) disposed at the outer edge perimeter (52) for augmenting the face-seal interface with the user [0023-0024; 0126; 0143] as discussed above; FIGS. 15-16.
The modified device of Miller does not disclose and a filter support structure coupled to the filter and the flexible rim, wherein the filter support structure is configured to engage the filter with the flexible rim to create an airtight seal between the filter and the flexible rim.
However, Jeong teaches a filter support-structure in the form of a frame (Jeong, 5) disposed internally of the filter body and configured to structurally support the filter body and maintain the form thereof [Jeong, 0004-0009].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the facemask of Miller as modified by Bietz to incorporate the filter support of Jeong in order to structurally support the filter and maintain the form thereof. In incorporating Jeong filter support structure frame into the modified facemask, it would have been obvious to configure the support structure to engage the filter with the surrounding flexible rim such that the filter is maintained in sealing engagement therewith, because Bietz teaches maintaining a strong, gap free engagement between the filter perimeter and surrounding mask structure to safeguard against leakage. The resulting arrangement would thereby provide the claimed airtight seal between the filter and flexible rim.
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask (FIG. 7) of claim 16, wherein: the flexible rim is inwardly biased; and the filter support structure (Jeong, 5) is outwardly biased (As illustrated in FIG. 7, Miller depicts a facemask wherein the flexible rim is inwardly biased. Alternatively, Bietz teaches an inboard flexible seal/rim (200) that extends inwardly towards the users face during use [Bietz, 0144]. Jeong teaches a filter support frame/structure (Jeong, 5) having an outwardly rounded configuration corresponding to the outward rounded contour of the mask body, wherein frame (5) structurally supports the filter body and maintains the form thereof [Jeong, 0012-0013; FIG. 1b]).
Regarding claim 18, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask (FIG. 7) of claim 16, wherein the filter support structure (Jeong, 5) comprises support elements (Jeong Fig. 1b depicts a filter support frame/structure (Jeong, 5) having an outwardly rounded configuration support elements in the form of grid ribs, wherein filter support frame/structure (Jeong, 5) structurally supports the filter body and maintains the form thereof [Jeong, 0012-0013; FIG. 1b]).
Regarding claim 19, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask (FIG. 7) of claim 18, wherein the support elements are configured as a lattice (Jeong Fig. 1b depicts a filter support frame/structure (Jeong, 5) having an outwardly rounded configuration support elements in the form of grid ribs (lattice pattern), wherein filter support frame/structure (Jeong, 5) structurally supports the filter body and maintains the form thereof [Jeong, 0012-0013; FIG. 1b]).
Regarding claim 20, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask (FIG. 7) of claim 16, wherein the convex portion of the cushion (26) facilitates the airtight seal, between the cushion and the user's face, when a length, from the user's chin to the bridge of the user's nose, is less than a length from the top to the bottom of the mask body (As illustrated in FIG. 7 the sealing member/cushion 25 includes a convex portion in the chin region of the mask body. Miller further discloses that the sealing member may be formed of an elastomeric material and may form a resiliently compressible cushion between the support frame and the wearer’s face, thereby permitting the cushion to deform/bend when acted upon by the wearer’s face. Miller further teaches that movement of the wearer’s jaw, including vertical movement of the chin, occurs during use and that flexibility of the sealing member facilitates maintaining an effective seal during facial movement. Therefore, when the user’s chin acts upon the convex portion shown in FIG. 7, the resiliently compressible convex portion bends relative to and extends away from the plane of the cushion attachment surface, thereby facilitating creation and maintenance of the surface seal between the cushion and the user’s face. Also, as illustrated in FIG. 10b the mask body user's chin to the bridge of the user's nose, is less than a length from the top to the bottom of the mask body. See Annotated FIG. 7 Below).
PNG
media_image3.png
448
517
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask (FIG. 7) of claim 16, wherein the filter support frame/structure (Jeong, 5) has a convex surface configured for placement against and at least substantially corresponding to an inner concave surface of the filter (Jeong teaches a filter support frame/structure (Jeong, 5) disposed internally of the mask main body and configured to support the mask main body and maintain the form thereof [Jeong, 0004-0005]. As illustrated in FIG. 1b, filter support frame/structure (Jeong, 5) has a three dimensional outwardly curved/convex configuration substantially corresponding to the inward-facing concave configuration corresponding to the inward-facing concave configuration of the mask body against which filter support frame/structure (Jeong, 5) positioned).
12. Claims 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (2022122976) in view of Bietz (20220323799) and Jeong (20140216479) and in further view of McAndrews (20160332008)
Regarding claim 21, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask (FIG. 7) of claim 16, wherein: the filter comprises apertures (Bietz, 154); and the filter support structure (Jeong, 5).
The modified device of Miller does not disclose the filter comprising extension elements wherein the extension elements extend through the apertures to engage the filter against the filter support structure.
However, McAndrews teaches a respirator system having a filter (16) comprising a border portion (16a) having a plurality of mount holes/apertures (16b), and a support frame (20) from a plurality of extension towers (30) with slots (32) protruding outwardly [McAndrews, 0025-0026]. McAndrews further teaches the perimeter edge/frame flange (20a) and filter (16) are configured to align and corporately engage, wherein causing extension elements extend through the apertures to engage the filter against the filter support structure [McAndrews, 0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the filter support structure of Miller as modified by Bietz and Jeong to include aperture engagement arrangement taught by McAndrews, wherein extension elements of the filter support structure extend through corresponding apertures of the filter, in order to provide positive alignment and retention of the filter relative to the filter support structure resulting in the modified device to have extension elements extending through the apertures of the filter to engage the filter against the filter support structure.
Regarding claim 22, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask (Miller, 200) of claim 21, wherein each of the apertures (McAndrews,16b) is located proximate to a continuous perimeter edge (McAndrews, 16a) of the filter (McAndrews teaches a plurality of mount holes/apertures (16b) are formed on the border portion 16a extends continuously about the perimeter of filter (16), such that each of the mount holes (16b) is located proximate to a continuous perimeter edge of the filter [McAndrews, 0026]. See FIGS. 5-6C).
Regarding claim 23, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask (FIG. 7) of claim 21, wherein the extension elements extend outwardly through the apertures of the filter. (McAndrews teaches that the plurality of pins (40) protrude outwardly from frame flange (10a) and the mount holes (16b) of the filter [0025-0026]).
Regarding claim 24, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask (FIG. 7) of claim 21, wherein: the filter support structure (McAndrews, 20) comprises a continuous back perimeter (McAndrews, 16a); and the extension elements extend outwardly (McAndrews, 30; 32) from the continuous back perimeter (McAndrews, 16a) (McAndrews teaches that the plurality of pins (40) protrude outwardly from frame flange (10a) and the mount holes (16b) of the filter [0025-0026]).
Regarding claim 25, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask (FIG. 7) of claim 24, wherein: the continuous back perimeter (McAndrews, 16a) forms a plane of the filter support element (McAndrews, 20); and the extension elements extend outwardly (McAndrews, 30; 32) along the plane of the filter support element (McAndrews teaches that the perimeter edge/frame flange (McAndrews, 20a) is a generally flat contiguous surface geometrically sized and shaped to align and mate with corresponding mount flange (McAndrews, 18a), and further teaching a plurality of pins (McAndrews, 40) protruding outwardly from the perimeter edge/frame flange (McAndrews, 20a) [0025-0026]. Thus, the perimeter edge/frame flange (McAndrews, 20a) corresponds to the claimed continuous back perimeter defining a plane of the filter support (McAndrews, 20), while pins (McAndrews, 40) correspond to the extension elements extending outwardly along the plane of the filter structure). See McAndrews FIG. 5-6C).
Regarding claim 26, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask (Miller, 200) of claim 21.
The modified device of Miller does not explicitly discloses the flexible rim comprising apertures; wherein the extension elements extend through the apertures of the flexible rim after the extension elements extend through the apertures of the filter, thereby contacting the filter with the flexible rim to create the airtight seal between the filter and the flexible rim.
However, McAndrews teaches an attachment arrangement wherein pins (40) extend from perimeter edge/frame flange (McAndrews, 20a), through corresponding mount holes (16b) of filter (16), and are thereafter received and engaged by corresponding mount holes (42) of mount flange (18a), thereby capturing filter (16) between frame flanges (18a and 20a) [McAndrews, 0025-0026]. McAndrews further teaches that capturing filter (16) between frame flanges (18a and 20a) in the locked configuration creates an air-tight seal such that inhaled air can only pass through the filter media [McAndrews, 0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the flexible rim of Miller to the aperture-engagement arrangement taught by McAndrews, such that the extension elements of the filter support structure extend through corresponding apertures of the filter and thereafter through corresponding apertures provided in the flexible rim, thereby retaining the filter in sealing engagement with the flexible rim, in order to provide positive alignment and secure retention of the filter while maintaining an airtight sealing relationship between the filter and surrounding mask structure.
Regarding claim 27, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask (FIG. 7) of claim 26, wherein the extension elements extend outwardly through the apertures of the flexible rim (McAndrews teaches that extension elements/ pins (40) protrude outwardly from perimeter edge/frame flange (McAndrews, 20a) and extend through corresponding mount holes (16b) of filter (16) to cooperatively engage corresponding mount holes (42) of mount frame flange (18a). Thus, McAndrews teaches an aperture-engagement arrangement in which the extension elements extend outwardly through the corresponding receiving apertures [McAndrews, 0025-0026]).
Regarding claim 28, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask kit of claim 16, wherein the filter support structure has a convex surface configured for placement against and at least substantially corresponding to an inner concave surface of the filter (Jeong teaches a filter support frame/structure (Jeong, 5) disposed internally of the mask main body and configured to support the mask main body and maintain the form thereof [Jeong, 0004-0005]. As illustrated in FIG. 1b, filter support frame/structure (Jeong, 5) has a three dimensional outwardly curved/convex configuration substantially corresponding to the inward-facing concave configuration corresponding to the inward-facing concave configuration of the mask body against which filter support frame/structure (Jeong, 5) positioned).
13. Claims 45-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller et al. (WO2022122976) in view of Bietz (20220323799) and Jeong (20140216479), and in further view of McAndrews (20160332008)
Regarding claim 45, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask kit comprising: a mask body comprising a cushion attachment surface and a flexible rim (Bietz, 156), wherein the mask body is flexible and resilient, the flexible rim (Bietz, 156) extends inwardly away from the cushion attachment surface and the mask body has the cushion of claim 1 coupled to the cushion attachment surface (Miller discloses facemask as illustrated in FIG. 7 the sealing member/cushion (25) configuration to the mask body. Miller further discloses that the sealing member may be formed of an elastomeric material and may form a resiliently compressible cushion between the support frame and the wearer’s face, thereby permitting the mask body to deform/bend when acted upon by the wearer’s face [Miller, page 11, 16]. Miller further teaches that movement of the wearer’s jaw, including vertical movement of the chin, occurs during use and that flexibility of the sealing member facilitates maintaining an effective seal during facial movement [Miller, page 12, 19]. Alternatively, to the extent the claimed “flexible rim” is interpreted as requiring a flexible peripheral portion of the mask distinct from Miller’s resiliently compressible cushion, Bietz discloses a facemask (Bietz, 1) having a mask body with an outer edge perimeter (52) extending about the periphery of the mask body and configured to form a seal about the user’s nose and mouth. Bietz further discloses that the peripheral sealing structure may comprise elongated, flexible, thin-walled portions having increased material flexibility, and may further include an outboard flexible seal (194) disposed at the outer edge perimeter (52) for augmenting the face-seal interface with the user [0023-0024; 0126; 0143] as discussed above; FIGS. 15-16).
The modified device of Miller does not disclose the flexible rim has apertures, a filter having apertures; and a filter support structure having extension elements and configured to be removably coupled to the filter and the flexible rim by: extending the extension elements through the apertures of the filter, thereby removably coupling the filter to the filter support structure; and after extending the extension elements through the apertures of the filter, extending the extension elements through the apertures of the flexible rim, thereby engaging the filter with the flexible rim to create an airtight seal between the filter and the flexible rim.
However, Jeong teaches a filter support-structure in the form of a frame (Jeong, 5) disposed internally of the filter body and configured to structurally support the filter body and maintain the form thereof [Jeong, 0004-0009].
Furthermore, McAndrews teaches an attachment arrangement comprising a filter (McAndrews, 16) having a border portion (McAndrews, 16a) with a plurality of mount holes/apertures (McAndrews,16b), and a support frame (McAndrews, 20) having extension elements/pins (McAndrews, 40) protruding outwardly from frame flange (McAndrews, 20a). The pins (McAndrews, 40) extend through corresponding mount holes (McAndrews, 16b) of filter (McAndrews, 16) and are thereafter received and engaged by corresponding mount holes (McAndrews, 42) of mount flange (McAndrews, 18a), thereby removably capturing filter (McAndrews, 16) between frame flanges (McAndrews, 18a and 20a) [McAndrews, 0025-0026]. McAndrews further teaches that capturing filter (McAndrews, 16) between the frame flanges in locked configuration creates an air-tight seal such that inhaled air can only pass through the filter media [McAndrews, 0026].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the facemask kit of Miller to incorporate Jeong filter support-structure and the aperture engagement arrangement taught by McAndrews, such that extension elements of the filter support structure extend through corresponding apertures of the filter support structure extend through corresponding apertures of the filter and thereafter through corresponding apertures provided in the flexible rim, thereby removably coupling the filter to the filter support structure and engaging the filter and thereafter through corresponding apertures provided in the flexible rim, thereby removably coupling the filter support structure and engaging the filter with the flexible rim, in order to provide alignment and removable retention of the filter while maintaining air-tight sealing relationship between the filter and surrounding mask structure.
PNG
media_image2.png
462
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 46, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask kit of claim 45, wherein: the flexible rim is inwardly biased; and the filter support structure is outwardly biased (Bietz teaches an inboard flexible seal/rim (200) that extends inwardly towards the users face during use [Bietz, 0144]. Jeong teaches a filter support frame/structure (Jeong, 5) having an outwardly rounded configuration corresponding to the outward rounded contour of the mask body, wherein frame (5) structurally supports the filter body and maintains the form thereof [Jeong, 0012-0013; FIG. 1b]).
Regarding claim 47, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask kit of claim 45, wherein the filter support structure comprises support elements (Jeong Fig. 1b depicts a filter support frame/structure (Jeong, 5) having an outwardly rounded configuration support elements in the form of grid ribs, wherein filter support frame/structure (Jeong, 5) structurally supports the filter body and maintains the form thereof [Jeong, 0012-0013; FIG. 1b]).
Regarding claim 48, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask kit of claim 47, wherein the support elements are configured as a lattice (Jeong Fig. 1b depicts a filter support frame/structure (Jeong, 5) having an outwardly rounded configuration support elements in the form of grid ribs (lattice pattern), wherein filter support frame/structure (Jeong, 5) structurally supports the filter body and maintains the form thereof [Jeong, 0012-0013; FIG. 1b]).
Regarding claim 49, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask kit of claim 45, wherein each of the apertures of the filter is located proximate to a continuous perimeter edge of the filter (McAndrews, 16a) of the filter (McAndrews teaches a plurality of mount holes/apertures (16b) are formed on the border portion 16a extends continuously about the perimeter of filter (16), such that each of the mount holes (16b) is located proximate to a continuous perimeter edge of the filter [McAndrews, 0026]. See FIGS. 5-6C).
Regarding claim 50, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask kit of claim 45, wherein the extension elements are configured to extend outwardly through the apertures of the filter (McAndrews teaches that the plurality of pins (40) protrudes outwardly from frame flange (10a) and the mount holes (16b) of the filter [0025-0026]).
Regarding claim 51, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask kit of claim 45, wherein: the filter support structure comprises a continuous back perimeter; and the extension elements extend outwardly from the continuous back perimeter (McAndrews, 16a); and the extension elements extend outwardly (McAndrews, 30; 32) from the continuous back perimeter (McAndrews, 16a) (McAndrews teaches that the plurality of pins (40) protrude outwardly from frame flange (10a) and the mount holes (16b) of the filter [0025-0026]).
Regarding claim 52, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask kit of claim 51, wherein: the continuous back perimeter forms a plane of the filter support structure; and the extension elements extend outwardly along the plane of the filter support structure (McAndrews teaches that the perimeter edge/frame flange (McAndrews, 20a) is a generally flat contiguous surface geometrically sized and shaped to align and mate with corresponding mount flange (McAndrews, 18a), and further teaching a plurality of pins (McAndrews, 40) protruding outwardly from the perimeter edge/frame flange (McAndrews, 20a) [0025-0026]. Thus, the perimeter edge/frame flange (McAndrews, 20a) corresponds to the claimed continuous back perimeter defining a plane of the filter support (McAndrews, 20), while pins (McAndrews, 40) correspond to the extension elements extending outwardly along the plane of the filter structure). See McAndrews FIG. 5-6C).
Regarding claim 53, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask kit of claim 45, wherein the extension elements are configured to extend outwardly through the apertures of the flexible rim (McAndrews teaches that extension elements/ pins (40) protrude outwardly from perimeter edge/frame flange (McAndrews, 20a) and extend through corresponding mount holes (16b) of filter (16) to cooperatively engage corresponding mount holes (42) of mount frame flange (18a). Thus, McAndrews teaches an aperture-engagement arrangement in which the extension elements extend outwardly through the corresponding receiving apertures [McAndrews, 0025-0026]).
Regarding claim 54, the modified device of Miller discloses a facemask kit of claim 45, wherein the filter support structure has a convex surface configured for placement against and at least substantially corresponding to an inner concave surface of the filter (Jeong teaches a filter support frame/structure (Jeong, 5) disposed internally of the mask main body and configured to support the mask main body and maintain the form thereof [Jeong, 0004-0005]. As illustrated in FIG. 1b, filter support frame/structure (Jeong, 5) has a three dimensional outwardly curved/convex configuration substantially corresponding to the inward-facing concave configuration corresponding to the inward-facing concave configuration of the mask body against which filter support frame/structure (Jeong, 5) positioned).
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LEROME PRATT whose telephone number is (571)272-
8454. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7:00-4:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Timothy Stanis can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent
Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published
applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status
information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For
more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you
have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business
Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO
Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call
800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LEROME PRATT/
Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
