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 .
Status of Claims
The present Office action is responsive to the Remarks and Amendments filed on 09-11-2026. As directed, claims 1-6 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-6 are currently pending examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has canceled subject matter from claim 1 which was not shown in the drawings. The previously held drawing objections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant has amended each of claims 1-2 and 4 to address minor informalities therein. The previously held claim objections are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, see Remarks as filed pages 4-5 at items 1-3, that snorkeling masks typically cover the entire face, and as such, the size of such masks typically requires a four-point mask connection. Applicant alleges that their two-point connection system is easier to don and doff, and signifies an improvement over the prior art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claim amendments are distinguished over the prior art for these reasons. New reliance on Shiue (US 2017/0334531) shows a full-face snorkeling mask (see Figs. 1-2; abstract, lines 1-5), wherein a two-point strap connection is envisioned (paragraph 51, lines 1-8; Figs. 1-3). Further, Shiue envisions both a two-point strap connection and a four-point strap connection (see Figs. 1-3 and 12), thus implicitly instructing the ordinarily skilled artisan that either configuration is acceptable in the field of snorkeling masks. Additionally, Applicant has alleged that the particular mask size claimed gives rise to the ability to use the two-point connection. While this may be true, the prior art of record has also been shown to envision the size of the claimed mask, which would indicate that, as modified, the mask as set forth in the prior art rejections of record would be capable of being fixed, with a two-point strap connection, to the face.
Applicant continues on to argue, see Remarks as filed page 5 at items 4-5, that simply removing lower or upper connection points in any of the Renna, Cristiani, or Solotoff masks, would not be possible because the mask could not be readily secured, and additionally argues that the mask size as claimed did not exist at the time of the Renna invention. Applicant then argues that Cristiani, relied on for the particular size of the mask, relates to a gas mask rather than one for snorkeling, and as such the size of the mask parameters relate to un-obstructing the field of the user’s vision rather than set forth the size in order to accommodate the two-point connection of the strap.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Cristiani predates Renna by three decades. The particularly sized mask of the instant claims was therefore known before Renna’s invention was published. Second, the modification proposed with respect to Renna’s strap connection will not be to simply remove either the upper or lower strap connectors, rather it would be to position the two connections in the manner suggested by Shiue (see Figs. 1-3). Further, while Cristiani may conceive of the size of the mask for viewing/vision purposes, the ordinarily skilled artisan in the field of snorkeling masks could reasonably look to Cristiani to solve a similar problem, or in general to glean information on suitable mask sizing. The standard for showing a prima facie case of obviousness is not that the inventor(s) of a subject reference solve the same problems as the instant inventor, rather it is whether an ordinarily skilled artisan would look to the subject reference for instruction for a particular teaching or motivated rationale. In the instant case, the size of the mask and the two-point connection system are not inter-related. They are claimed as separate, structural components. Further, even if it were the case that the mask size and the two-point connection were claimed to be inter-dependent, the modified mask of Renna in view of Cristiani and Shiue include all of the claimed structural features, and would therefore still read on the claimed invention.
The rejections of record will be updated to include reliance on Shiue for the amended subject matter, but rejection of claim 1 and its dependents will be maintained, as Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in light of the cited references.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renna (WO 2022/106274) in view of Shiue (US 2017/0334531) and Cristiani (EP 0511593).
Regarding claim 1, Renna discloses a breathable mask (1) for snorkeling (page 1, lines 6-11; page 7, lines 13-17; Fig. 1), including a body (see annotated Fig. 2 below) and a breathing tube (19) being in fluid communication with an interior of the body (see annotated Fig. 2 below) (page 8, lines 18-23 and page 7, lines 23-28 which defines the upper chamber 13), the body (see annotated Fig. 2 below) including:
a main frame (5) (page 7, line 13; Figs. 1-2);
at least one lens (3) being embedded in the main frame (5) (page 7, lines 13-17; Figs. 1-2);
a waterproof sealing skirt (9) partially fitted with the main frame (5) and the at least one lens (3) (page 7, lines 23-24, note that page 7, lines 13-17 define that the visor 3 is mounted to the frame 5, and thus visor 3 and skirt 9 are at least indirectly fitted together; see Figs. 1-2), the waterproof sealing skirt (9) being configured to fit a user’s face and enclose the user’s eyes, nose, and mouth of the user (page 7, lines 23-33; Figs. 1-2);
wherein the body (see annotated Fig. 2 below) further includes a head strap which has two ends fixed to the main frame (9), in which the two ends are located to correspond to two outer sides of the user’s eyes, respectively (page 7, lines 17-19, see “strap”; Figs. 1-2, note that each of the attachment organs 33 is oriented above and laterally offset on the two opposite sides of the mask 1 at extreme left and right sides which would correspond to the left and right outer sides of the user’s eyes respectively); and the waterproof sealing skirt (9) has a region being configured to contact the user’s face (page 7, lines 23-33) and having an uppermost portion and a lowermost portion wherein the midpoint of the uppermost portion and a midpoint of the lowermost portion defines a maximum height (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
541
511
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Renna fails to disclose that the body includes a two-point head strap which only has two ends fixed to the main frame, and wherein a maximum height ranges between 100 millimeters and 165 millimeters.
However, Shiue teaches a full-face snorkeling mask (abstract, lines 1-5; Figs. 1-3) that includes a main frame (120) and a head strap (160), wherein the head strap (160) is connected to the main frame (120) at only two ends to form a two-point connection between the components, and wherein the two ends are configured to be located to correspond to two outer edges of the user’s eyes (paragraph 47, lines 1-8; paragraph 51, lines 1-11; Figs. 1-3, note that the connection points at 161 are oriented to the sides of the lens 130, and are thus understood to be positioned to correspond to outer edges of the user’s eyes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mask of Renna to further include a two-point head strap which only has two ends fixed to the main frame, as taught by Shiue, as a known and reliable structural system and method for securing a full-face mask to a user’s head during use.
Now modified Renna fails to wherein a maximum height ranges between 100 millimeters and 165 millimeters.
However, Cristiani teaches a mask (1) (Col. 3, lines 32-35; Fig. 1) which includes an analogous sealing skirt (2) (Col. 3, lines 36-39) and a lens (4), with the sealing skirt (2) attached by its outer perimeter to the lens (4) (Col. 3, lines 40-44), wherein the visor (4) has a maximum height (d), defined by extreme upper and lower edges (4A and 4B), that ranges from 130 to 220 millimeters (Col. 4, lines 30-33; Fig. 2; note also the overlapping connection and height of sealing skirt 2 with frame 4 in Fig. 1).
In the case where the prior art range overlaps that which is instantly claimed, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the prior art range of 130-220 millimeters overlaps the claimed range of 100-165 millimeters. Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the maximum height of the sealing skirt to be in the range of 130 to 220 millimeters (which overlaps the claimed range, presenting a prima facie case of obviousness), as taught by Cristiani, in order to provide the mask and sealing skirt in a known size configuration for fitting and sealing on the user’s face properly.
Regarding claim 4, Renna in view of Shiue and Cristiani disclose the breathable mask for snorkeling of claim 1, as discussed above.
Renna further discloses wherein the main frame (5) and the at least one lens (3) are configured to only cover the user’s eyes; and the waterproof sealing skirt (9) has an eye portion (13 created by partition 11) which is embedded with the main frame (5) and the lens (3) (page 7, lines 13-17 and 23-33; Figs. 1-2, note that upper chamber 13 including visor 3 only covers the eyes, whereas lower chamber 15 formed by partition 11 covers the nose and mouth).
Regarding claim 5, Renna in view of Shiue and Cristiani disclose the breathable mask for snorkeling of claim 4, as discussed above.
Presently modified Renna discloses wherein the maximum height is between 130 and 220 millimeters (see Cristiani at Col. 4, lines 30-33; Fig. 2).
In the case where the prior art range overlaps that which is instantly claimed, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the prior art range of 130-220 millimeters overlaps the claimed range of 100-150 millimeters. Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the maximum height of the sealing skirt to be in the range of 130 to 220 millimeters (which overlaps the claimed range, presenting a prima facie case of obviousness), as taught by Cristiani, in order to provide the mask and sealing skirt in a known size configuration for fitting and sealing on the user’s face properly.
Regarding claim 6, Renna in view of Shiue and Cristiani disclose the breathable mask for snorkeling of claim 5, as discussed above.
Presently modified Renna discloses wherein the maximum height is between 130 and 220 millimeters (see Cristiani at Col. 4, lines 30-33; Fig. 2).
In the case where the prior art range overlaps that which is instantly claimed, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the prior art range of 130-220 millimeters overlaps the claimed range of 100-130 millimeters. Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the maximum height of the sealing skirt to be in the range of 130 to 220 millimeters (which overlaps the claimed range, presenting a prima facie case of obviousness), as taught by Cristiani, in order to provide the mask and sealing skirt in a known size configuration for fitting and sealing on the user’s face properly.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renna (WO 2022/106274) in view of Shiue (US 2017/0334531) and Cristiani (EP 0511593), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Solotoff (US 11,760,451).
Regarding claim 2, Renna in view of Shiue and Cristiani disclose the breathable mask for snorkeling of claim 1, as discussed above.
Modified Renna fails to disclose wherein the main frame and the lens are configured to cover the eyes, nose and mouth of the user.
However, Solotoff teaches a breathable mask (100) (Col. 4, lines 35-38; Fig. 1) wherein an analogous main frame (110) and an analogous at least one lens (120) can alternatively be configured to cover only the user’s eyes or be configured to cover the eyes, nose and mouth of the user (Col. 4, lines 49-58).
Therefore, given that Renna and Solotoff are both directed to the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the main frame and the at least one lens of modified Renna to extend and be supported by the entirety of the frame to cover eyes, nose and mouth of a user, as taught by Solotoff, as a known alternative to the extension of the frame and lens to cover only the eyes of the user which would serve to extend the viewing area of the breathable mask.
Regarding claim 3, Renna in view of Shiue, Cristiani, and Solotoff disclose the breathable mask for snorkeling of claim 2, as discussed above.
Presently modified Renna discloses wherein the maximum height is between 130 and 220 millimeters (see Cristiani at Col. 4, lines 30-33; Fig. 2).
In the case where the prior art range overlaps that which is instantly claimed, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In the instant case, the prior art range of 130-220 millimeters overlaps the claimed range of 140-165 millimeters. Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the maximum height of the sealing skirt to be in the range of 130 to 220 millimeters (which overlaps the claimed range, presenting a prima facie case of obviousness), as taught by Cristiani, in order to provide the mask and sealing skirt in a known size configuration for fitting and sealing on the user’s face properly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jacob (US 2005/0066967) is cited for its head strap connection as shown in Figure 2. While there are four total connection points for the straps, it is noted that there are two separate head straps, wherein each is configured to only contact the mask body at two points.
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 PAIGE BUGG whose telephone number is (571)272-8053. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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.
/PAIGE KATHLEEN BUGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
