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 .
This action is in response to the filing on 11/28/2023. Since the initial filing, no claims have been added, amended or cancelled. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig 7A and 7B show reference number 340 pointing to different elements with the reference number 350, not present in Fig 7A, pointing to the element which was labeled 340 in Fig 7A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, 10-12, 16 and 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
Line 4 and 13: change “at least substantially” to “substantially”
Claim 3:
Line 2: change “at least substantially” to “substantially”
Claim 6:
Line 1: insert “wherein” before “structural rib”
Line 3: change “at least substantially” to “substantially”
Claim 10:
Line 1: insert “further comprising” before “one or more”
Claim 11:
Line 1: remove “wherein the”
Claim 12:
Line 5 and 16: change “at least substantially” to “substantially”
Claim 16:
Line 1: insert “the engagement” between “wherein the” and “of the outer shell”
Claim 19:
Line 10: change “at least substantially” to “substantially”
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-11 and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2008/0223370) in view of Patron (US 6530373).
In regards to claim 1, Kim discloses a mask component for a respiratory protective device, the mask component comprising: an inner shell component configured to engage a face of a user (exhaust panel 30 faces face of user, Fig 9a); an outer shell component having an at least substantially non-rigid configuration such that at least a portion of the outer shell component is bendable (main body 10, paragraph 26); and a structural rib provided along one or more surfaces of the outer shell component (fixed frame 13, Fig 5), wherein the structural rib is configured to detachably engage at least a portion of the inner shell component to secure the outer shell component in an aligned position relative to the inner shell component (paragraph 22, Fig 8a-8b); and wherein the aligned position is defined by one or more surfaces of the structural rib being disposed at least substantially adjacent a welding lip defined by the inner shell component (closing rise 33 on panel 30 attaches to fixed frame 13, paragraph 34, Fig 8a-8b).
Kim does not teach the structural rib having an at least partially rigid configuration such that the structural rib is configured to provide structural support for the non-rigid outer shell component or the welding lip being configured for coupling to the one or more surfaces of the structural rib via an ultrasonic welding means to define one or more attachment interfaces at which the inner shell component is at least partially secured relative to the structural rib.
However, Patron teaches the structural rib having an at least partially rigid configuration such that the structural rib is configured to provide structural support for the non-rigid outer shell component (rigid or semi-rigid support ring 123, column 4 line 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim wherein the structural rib having an at least partially rigid configuration such that the structural rib is configured to provide structural support for the non-rigid outer shell component as taught by Patron as this would provide an internal support to ensure the mask fit.
Further, while the combination does not teach the welding lip being configured for coupling to the one or more surfaces of the structural rib via an ultrasonic welding means to define one or more attachment interfaces at which the inner shell component is at least partially secured relative to the structural rib, it has been held that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). (MPEP2113). As the structure of the lip is established in the combination, it being “configured for welding” references the process by which the product may be achieved and holds no patentable weight with regards to the end product.
In regards to claim 2, Kim in view of Patron teaches the device of claim 1 and Kim further disclose wherein the welding lip defined by the inner shell component is provided along at least a portion of one or more outer surfaces of the inner shell component (Fig 8a-8b).
In regards to claim 3, Kim in view of Patron teaches the device of claim 2 and Kim further discloses wherein at least a portion of the welding lip is arranged at least substantially adjacent a perimeter edge defined by an inner shell indentation portion of the inner shell component (Fig 8a-8B).
In regards to claim 5, Kim in view of Knitter teaches the device of claim 1.
Kim does not disclose wherein at least a portion of the structural rib is made from a polycarbonate material.
However, Patron teaches wherein at least a portion of the structural rib is made from a polycarbonate material (support ring 123 formed of polycarbonate, column 5 line 53-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim wherein at least a portion of the structural rib is made from a polycarbonate material as taught by Patron as this is a material known in the art from which to form mask support structures.
In regards to claim 6, Kim in view of Patron teaches the device of claim 1.
While the combination does not teach wherein structural rib comprises a central rib portion defined by a first rib thickness, and one or more rib arm portions defined by a second rib thickness, wherein the first rib thickness is at least substantially less than the second rib thickness, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). (MPEP 2144.04 IV A). Therefore, as no criticality has been attributed to the thickness of the rib, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim wherein structural rib comprises a central rib portion defined by a first rib thickness, and one or more rib arm portions defined by a second rib thickness, wherein the first rib thickness is at least substantially less than the second rib thickness as such thickness might be altered to fit effectively within the mask.
In regards to claim 7, Kim in view of Patron teaches the device of claim 1.
While the combination does not teach wherein the structural rib is formed using an over-molding process, it has been held that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). (MPEP2113).
In regards to claim 9, Kim in view of Patron teaches the device of claim 1.
While the combination does not teach wherein the ultrasonic welding means is defined at least in part by causing a vibration of the inner shell component using ultrasonic vibrations such that at least a portion of the welding lip engaged with the structural rib is at least partially melted, it has been held that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). (MPEP2113).
In regards to claim 10, Kim in view of Patron teaches the device of claim 1 and Kim further discloses wherein one or more internal mask components configured to enable operation of the mask component are secured in an installed position relative to an inner surface of the outer shell component (shield film 40 set in panel 30, paragraph 35-36, Fig 8a-8b).
In regards to claim 11, Kim in view of Patron teaches the device of claim 10.
While Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the one or more internal mask components configured to enable operation of the mask component is separated from the structural rib by a respective separation distance that is at least 1.0 mm, it does show wherein the internal mask components (shield film 40 set in panel 30, paragraph 35-36, Fig 8a-8b) are even with the mouth of a user while the structural rib extends above the nose and nearly to the chin (Fig 9a-9b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim wherein the wherein each of the one or more internal mask components configured to enable operation of the mask component is separated from the structural rib by a respective separation distance that is at least 1.0 mm as taught by Kim as this would place the operational components of the mask near to the mouth of the user while allowing for comfortable space within the mask.
In regards to claim 12, Kim discloses a mask component for a respiratory protective device, the mask component comprising: an inner shell component configured to engage a face of a user (exhaust panel 30 faces face of user, Fig 9a), an outer shell component having an at least substantially non-rigid configuration such that at least a portion of the outer shell component is bendable (main body 10, paragraph 26); and a structural rib provided along one or more surfaces of the outer shell component (fixed frame 13, Fig 5) and wherein upon establishing the detachable connection of the structural rib to the inner shell component, the outer shell element is disposed in an aligned position in which one or more surfaces of the structural rib are disposed at least substantially adjacent a welding lip defined by the inner shell component (paragraph 22, closing rise 33 on panel 30 attaches to fixed frame 13, paragraph 34, Fig 8a-8b).
Kim does not disclose wherein the rib configured to provide structural support for the non-rigid outer shell component; the inner shell component comprising one or more inner shell alignment elements; the structural rib defining one or more outer shell alignment elements configured to engage the one or more inner shell alignment elements to operably couple the structural rib to the inner shell component via a detachable connection, wherein the one or more inner shell alignment elements are distributed about an outer surface of the inner shell surface such that, upon establishing the detachable connection the outer shell element is disposed in an aligned position; such that the welding lip is configured for coupling to the one or more surface of the structural rib via an ultrasonic welding means.
However, Patron teaches wherein the rib is configured to provide structural support for the non-rigid outer shell component (rigid or semi-rigid support ring 123, column 4 line 4-5); the inner shell component comprising one or more inner shell alignment elements; the structural rib defining one or more outer shell alignment elements configured to engage the one or more inner shell alignment elements to operably couple the structural rib to the inner shell component via a detachable connection, wherein the one or more inner shell alignment elements are distributed about an outer surface of the inner shell surface such that, upon establishing the detachable connection the outer shell element is disposed in an aligned position (attachment portions cooperate to link support ring 123 to mask shell 100, column 3 line 65 – column 5 line 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim wherein the rib is configured to provide structural support for the non-rigid outer shell component; the inner shell component comprising one or more inner shell alignment elements; the structural rib defining one or more outer shell alignment elements configured to engage the one or more inner shell alignment elements to operably couple the structural rib to the inner shell component via a detachable connection, wherein the one or more inner shell alignment elements are distributed about an outer surface of the inner shell surface such that, upon establishing the detachable connection the outer shell element is disposed in an aligned position as taught by Patron as this would provide a solid and easily manipulated support and attachment between the components.
Further, while the combination does not disclose wherein the welding lip is configured for coupling to the one or more surface of the structural rib via an ultrasonic welding means, Further, while the combination does not teach the welding lip being configured for coupling to the one or more surfaces of the structural rib via an ultrasonic welding means to define one or more attachment interfaces at which the inner shell component is at least partially secured relative to the structural rib, it has been held that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). (MPEP2113). As the structure of the lip is established in the combination, it being “configured for welding” references the process by which the product may be achieved and holds no patentable weight with regards to the end product.
In regards to claim 13, Kim in view of Patron teaches the device of claim 12 and the combination further teaches wherein the one or more inner shell alignment elements define a plurality of inner shell alignment elements and the one or more outer shell alignment elements define a plurality of outer shell alignment elements, each of the plurality of inner alignment elements being configured for engagement with a respective outer shell alignment element of the plurality of outer shell alignment elements (Patron: attachment portions cooperate to link support ring 123 to mask shell 100, column 3 line 65 – column 5 line 2, Fig 4A-9B).
In regards to claim 14, Kim in view of Patron teaches the device of claim 12 and the combination further teaches wherein each of the one or more outer shell alignment elements comprises at least one chamfered engagement surface configured for physically contacting the corresponding inner shell alignment element, wherein the chamfered engagement surface defines an angled configuration configured to at least partially reduce a resistance force imparted on the outer shell alignment element as the outer shell alignment element moves relative to the corresponding inner shell alignment element engaged therewith (Patron: attachment portions cooperate to link support ring 123 to mask shell 100 and may be barbed structure, column 4 line 4-10, Fig 4A-4B).
In regards to claim 15, Kim in view of Patron teaches the device of claim 12.
While the combination does not teach wherein the structural rib is formed using an over-molding process, it has been held that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). (MPEP2113).
In regards to claim 16, Kim in view of Patron teaches the device of claim 12 and the combination further teaches wherein the of the outer shell alignment components with the corresponding inner shell alignment element is defined by a snap connection (Patron: column 5 line 63-67).
In regards to claim 17, Kim in view of Patron teaches the device of claim 12 and the combination further teaches wherein the one or more outer shell alignment elements includes a first outer shell alignment element embodying a male buckle fastener and the one or more inner shell alignment elements includes a first inner shell alignment element corresponding to the first outer shell alignment element and embodying a female buckle fastener, wherein the snap connection is defined at least in part by the male buckle fastener being received by the female buckle fastener to at least partially restrict a movement of the first outer shell alignment element relative to the first inner shell alignment element in one or more directions (Patron: attachment portions cooperate to link support ring 123 to mask shell 100, column 3 line 65 – column 5 line 2, Fig 4A-9B).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2008/0223370) in view of Patron (US 6530373) and in further view of Ellison (US 2022/0241623).
In regards to claim 4, Kim in view of Patron teaches the device of claim 1.
Kim does not disclose wherein at least a portion of the outer shell component is made from a thermoplastic polyurethane material.
However, Ellison teaches a mask wherein at least a portion of the outer shell component is made from a thermoplastic polyurethane material (paragraph 45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim wherein at least a portion of the outer shell component is made from a thermoplastic polyurethane material as taught by Ellison as this is a known material in the art for forming such masks.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2008/0223370) in view of Patron (US 6530373) and in further view of McAuley (US 2010/0006101).
In regards to claim 8, Kim in view of Patron teaches the device of claim 7.
Kim does not disclose wherein the mask component defines one or more undercut structures provided at an inner surface of the outer shell component, wherein the one or more undercut structures are configured to enhance a binding force acting between the outer shell component and the structural rib during the over-molding process.
However, McAuley teaches wherein adjacent component of a mask assembly are linked wherein the mask component defines one or more undercut structures provided at an inner surface of the outer shell component, wherein the one or more undercut structures are configured to enhance a binding force acting between the outer shell component and the structural rib during the over-molding process (paragraph 162).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim the mask component defines one or more undercut structures provided at an inner surface of the outer shell component, wherein the one or more undercut structures are configured to enhance a binding force acting between the outer shell component and the structural rib during the over-molding process as taught by McAuley as this would ensure a full and secure connection between adjacent components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach all of the structural and functional limitations as described in the claims.
Specifically, independent claim 18 describes assembling a mask by securing one or more outer shell alignment elements defined by a structural rib operably attached to an outer shell component to a corresponding one or more inner shell alignment elements to detachably secure the outer shell component in an aligned position relative to the inner shell component, wherein the aligned position is defined by one or more surfaces of the structural rib being disposed at least substantially adjacent a welding lip defined by the inner shell component; and coupling the one or more surfaces of the structural rib to the welding lip via an ultrasonic welding means to define one or more attachment interfaces at which the inner shell component is at least substantially permanently coupled to the structural rib. While the prior art teaches methods of detachable securements for attaching mask components (Patron: attachment portions cooperate to link support ring 123 to mask shell 100, column 3 line 65 – column 5 line 2, Fig 4A-9B) and permanent attachment via ultrasonic welding (Kim: paragraph 31; Knitter: paragraph 63-64), the prior art does not describe a method of assembly in which the two are used consecutively to attach the same set of components.
For these reasons, independent claim 18 and its dependents 19 and 20 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arielle Wolff whose telephone number is (571)272-8727. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARIELLE WOLFF/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights