DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03 Mar 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-25 are pending in the application. Claims 6, 10-11, 15 and 20 are currently amended. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have partially overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03 Dec 2025. The remaining 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is restated below.
The prior 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn as requested (Pg. 9-10) based on the amendment to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 Mar 2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 6 applicant argues the “first protrusion” and “positioning groove” do not render the claim indefinite because they are clearly disclosed in the specification.
As an initial note, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 6 has been updated below to only be directed toward the “positioning groove” portion of the claim. Examiner agrees the positioning groove is clearly disclosed in the specification. The indefiniteness issue in claim 6 is not addressing the general disclosure of the positioning groove. Rather, the indefiniteness issue in claim 6 is particularly concerned with the fact that the disclosed “positioning groove” appears to be directed to the same structure already recited in claim 1 as “a fitting to detachably connect with the frame”. The “fitting” of claim 1 is best understood from the specification as the positioning groove of claim 6 (e.g. “a positioning groove 16 is formed, which matches the inner edge of the central opening 40 of the frame 4” in the specification at Pg. 21, Ln. 6-8). It is thus confusing that the same structure would be separately termed in the claims as “fitting” and “positioning groove” without the claims somehow identifying that they relate to the same structure.
Examiner concurs with applicant’s assertion that Goldspink et al. (U.S. Pub. 2018/0236200) fails to teach or suggest the overall requirements of amended claims 11, 15 and 20. The prior 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are thus withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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(s) 6 and 10-14 is/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.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “a positioning groove” which deems the claim indefinite. Claim 1 has already recited a “fitting” to detachably connect with the frame. The fitting of claim 1 appears best understood as directed to the disclosed positioning groove 16 (e.g. “a positioning groove 16 is formed, which matches the inner edge of the central opening 40 of the frame 4” in the specification at Pg. 21, Ln. 6-8). It is thus confusing that the same structure would be separately termed in the claims as “fitting” and “positioning groove” without the claims somehow identifying that they relate to the same structure. It is suggested to amend the instant claim to specify that the fitting of claim 1 particularly takes the form of a positioning groove.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "each of the at least one exhaust port" in Ln. 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim cannot be reasonably understood without the at least one exhaust port. The claim is thus found to have improperly removed introduction of the at least one exhaust port with its deletion of Ln. 13-14. Further, “the at least one exhaust port” is recited in each of dependent claims 12-14, indicating that claim 11 must be understood to introduce the at least one exhaust port. For the purposes of examination the deleted limitations of Ln. 13-14 will be read as still part of the claim to provide the proper antecedent basis for the final limitation of claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 15-25 are allowed over the prior art. Claims 6 and 10 are solely rejected based upon the above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
Claims 11-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 1 remains allowed over the prior art for the same reasons stated in the preceding Office action.
As noted in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 11 above, claim 11 cannot be properly understood without introduction of the at least one exhaust port in the manner corresponding to the deleted Ln. 13-14 of the claim. The prior art fails to teach or suggest the overall requirements of claim 11 (with inclusion of the deleted Ln. 13-14).
In the interests of compact prosecution it is noted for applicant’s consideration that should reference to the at least one exhaust port be fully removed from claim 11 the claim would likely be rejectable with any of Matula (U.S. Pub. 2014/0299134; Fig. 3), Liu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0001094; Fig. 1) or Lim et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0001072; Figs. 95-100 & 115-134).
Examiner concurs with applicant’s assertion that amended claims 15 and 20 patentably distinguish over the prior art of record. Particular note is made of the recitation in the claims that the connector is prevented from sliding or rotating relative to the frame, that the connector connects to both the frame and the face mask (i.e. implying the connector physically contacts both the frame and the face mask), and the recitation of an elbow which is distinct from the connector. No alternate prior art is found which would have rendered the instant claims as prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention.
It is thus found that one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention would only have arrived at the instantly claimed invention by way of improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH D BOECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-0376. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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.
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785