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 .
Priority
The priority date of claims 1–18 is February 28, 2024.
Instant application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 16,359,311, filed March 20, 2019, which claims foreign priority to DE 10 2018 002 343.6, filed March 21, 2028.
Instant claims 1–18 are not entitled to the priority date of U.S. Application No. 16,359,311 because U.S. Application No. 16,359,311 fails to provide support for the limitation in instant claim 1 of:
“the nose and the chin section having an inner layer arranged to be in contact with the user;
the mouth section having an inner layer arranged to be closest to the mouth of the user, the inner layer of the mouth section being a different material from a material of the inner layer of the nose layer and the chin section.”
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to because the second full paragraph (starting with “a breathing half mask structure”) fails to separate each element of the claim by a line indentation. See MPEP 608.01(m) (“each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation”). Failure to correct this issue may result in a notice of non-compliance.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 7 recites:
7. A breathing half mask in accordance with claim 1, wherein the nose section and the chin section have a same filter material. Emphasis added.
Claim 7 fails to further limit the scope of claim 1 because claim 1 recites that “the nose section and the chin section having the same filter material.”
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Facer et al., US 2008/0271739 A1 in view of Orofino, US 2015/0306432 A1 and in further view of Japuntich et al., US 2003/0005934 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Facer discloses a respiratory mask 10, which reads on the claimed “breathing half mask.” See Facer Figs. 1–5, [0046]. The preamble limitation indicating that—the mask is “for protection against particles, aerosols, and odors”—fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art because it describes the intended use rather than the structure of the apparatus. See MPEP 2111.02, subsection II.
The mask 10 comprises a mask body 11. See Facer Fig. 4, [0046]. The mask body 11 reads on the “breathing half mask structure.” See Facer Figs. 1–5, [0046]. The mask body 11 comprises a top panel 12, a central panel 14 and a bottom panel 16. Id. These panels 12, 14, 16 read on the “plurality of mask sections.” The panels are mapped to claim 1 as follows:
The top panel 12 reads on the “nose section.” See Facer Fig. 4, [0046]. The perimeter 32 of this panel 12 where it seals against the face is the “nose sealing line.” Id. at Fig. 5a, [0048]
The bottom panel 16 reads on the “chin section.” See Facer Fig. 4, [0046]. The perimeter 32 of this panel 16 where it seals against the face is the “chin sealing line.” Id. at [0048].
The perimeter 32 of the top panel 12 and the perimeter of the bottom panel 16 (the “sealing lines”) are configured to be in contact with, and provide sealing with, a corresponding face section of the user, as claimed, because the perimeter 32 is shaped to contact the wearer’s face over the nose bridge and under the chin. See Facer [0048].
The central panel 14 reads on the “mouth section.” See Facer Fig. 4, [0046]. The central panel 14 is arranged between the top and bottom panels 12, 16, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 4.
The central panel 14 defines a breathing space in a use space of the mask 10, as claimed, as seen in Figs. 3 and 4.
The mask 10 is movable by a folding process from a storage state into the use state, as claimed. See Facer [0052].
Each of the panels 12, 14, 16 comprises a filter material. The filter material of the central panel 14 is seen in Fig. 8a. See Facer [0044], [0053]. The filter material of the top panel 12 is seen in Fig. 8b. Id. The top and bottom panels 12, 16 have the same filter material structure. Id. at [0072]. Therefore, Fig. 8b also shows the filter material of the bottom panel 16. The filter material of each panel 12, 14, 16 is capable of removing particles, aerosols or odors, as claimed. See Facer [0057].
The filter material of the central panel 14 is different from the filter material of the top and bottom panels 12, 16 (“the filter material of at least one of the mask sections…being different from the filter material of at least another one of the mask sections”). This is because the central panel 14 comprises stiffening layer 58, while the top and bottom panels 12, 16 do not comprise a stiffening layer. See Facer Figs. 8a, 8b, [0053], [0055].
Mutually adjacent panels are connected to one another by a connection at connection sections, as claimed. Specifically, the top panel 12 is connected to the central panel 14 at a first line of demarcation 18. See Facer Fig. 4, [0046]. The central panel 14 is connected to the bottom panel 16 at a second line of demarcation 20. Id. The first and second lines of demarcation 18, 20 read on the “connection sections.”
Each panel 12, 14, 20 comprise a respective layer structure, as claimed, as seen in Figs. 8a and 8b. See Facer [0053]. The respective layer structure is with “at least one layer of a single homogeneous filter material extending across an entirety of the respective section,” as claimed. This is because the layer structure of the central panel 14 comprises four layers of a single homogenous filter material extending across an entirety of the panel 14. Id. These layers are the outer cover web 54, the filtration layer 56, the stiffening layer 58 and the outer cover web 60. Id. at Fig. 8a, [0053]. The layer structure of each of the top and bottom panels 12, 16 comprises three layers of a single homogenous filter material extending across an entirety of each panel 12, 16. These layers are the outer cover web 60, the filtration layer 56 and the outer cover web 54. Id. at Fig. 8b, [0053].
The layer structure of the central panel 14 (the “mouth section”) is thicker than the respective layer section of the top and bottom panels 12, 16 (the “nose section” and the “chin section”), as claimed. This is because the central panel 14 comprises stiffening layer 58, while the top and bottom panels 12, 16 do not. See Facer Figs. 8a, 8b, [0053], [0055].
The top panel 12 (the “nose section”) and the bottom panel 16 (the “chin section”) have the same filter material, as claimed, because the top and bottom panels 12, 16 have the layer structure seen in Fig. 8b (lack stiffening layer 58). See Facer Fig. 8b, [0053], [0055].
The lines of demarcation 18, 20 (the “connection sections”) are a separate structure from the filter material of panels 12, 14, 16, as claimed. This is because the lines of demarcation 18, 20 can be formed by welds at the intersection of adjacent panels. See Facer [0022]. The weld between two panels is a “separate structure” from the material of the panel, because the weld consists of molten material that re-solidifies to join the two panels together, whereas the filter material of each panel comprises porous media that is not welded.
The top panel 12 (the “nose section”) and the bottom panel 16 (the “chin section”) have an inner layer arranged to point towards the face of the user, as claimed. This is because the top panel 12 has a nose clip 28 made from a malleable strip of metal that is conformable to the shape of a user’s face, with an inner layer of nose foam 30 that contacts the user’s face in the area of the mask where the nose clip 28 is located. See Facer Figs. 3, 4, [0046]–[0047]. The layer of nose foam 30 reads on the “inner layer of the nose section.”
The central panel 14 (the “mouth section”) has web layer 54 (the “inner layer”) arranged to be closest to the mouth of the user, as claimed. See Facer Fig. 8a, [0053]. The web layer 54 is made from a different material from the inner layer of foam 30 on the top panel 12, as claimed (“the inner layer of the mouth section being a different material from a material of the nose…section”).
PNG
media_image1.png
1042
1740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Facer differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to bottom panel 16 (the “chin section”) having an inner layer arranged to point towards the face of the user, where the web layer 54 of the central panel 14 (the “inner layer of the mouth section”) is a different material form the material of the inner layer of the bottom panel 16, as claimed.
But, as noted, the top panel 12 (the “nose section”) has a nose clip 28 made from a malleable strip of metal that conforms to a user’s face, with a layer of nose foam 30 in the top panel 12 in the area where the nose clip 28 is located. The nose foam 30 improves the comfort of the nose clip.
Orofino teaches a face mask 10 comprising a malleable stiffening member 14, 24 on the top and bottom of the mask 10, to allow the mask 10 to conform to the shape of the user’s nose and chin, allow for a custom fit to the user’s face. See Orofino Fig. 1, [0009], [0042].
PNG
media_image2.png
1046
1710
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the bottom panel 16 of Facer (the “chin section”) to include a malleable clip, in view of Orofino, to improve the fit of the mask on the user’s face. With this modification, it also would have been obvious to provide a layer of foam adjacent to the chin clip, in the same way that the nose foam 30 is adjacent to the nose clip 28 in Facer, in order to improve the comfort of the chin clip on the user’s face.
With this modification, the layer of chin foam in the bottom panel 16 of Facer reads on the “inner layer of the chin section.” The chin foam is of a different material than the material of the cover web 54 in the central panel 14 (the “inner layer of the mouth section”), as claimed, because the cover web 54 is not made of foam.
Facer also differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the filter material of the top panel 12 (the “nose section”) and the filter material of the bottom panel 16 (the “chin section”) having a higher breathing resistance than the filter material of the central panel 14 (the “mouth section”).
But Facer teaches that the central panel 14 can include an exhalation valve. See Facer [0070]. Also, Japuntich teaches a face mask comprising an exhalation valve comprising an exhale filter element placed upstream of the exhalation valve. See Japuntich [0051]. The exhale filter element has a lower resistance than the filter material (the inhale filter element) of the mask body. Id. at [0058]. The exhale filter element is beneficial because it prevents contaminants in the exhale flow stream from exiting the face mask. Id. at [0017].
It would have been obvious to provide the exhale filter element of Japuntich upstream of the exhalation valve in the central panel 14 of Facer to prevent contaminants in the exhale flow stream from exiting the face mask.
With this modification, the exhale filter element is interpreted as part of the “filter material of the mouth section” because the exhale filter element is filter material located in the central panel 14 (the “mouth section”) of Facer. It is noted that claim 1 indicates that the filter material of the mouth section “comprises a respective layer structure.” But the claim does not require that the entirety of the filter material of the mouth section includes the layer structure, due to the open-ended transitional phrase “comprises.”
Therefore, this modification results in “the filter material of the nose section and the filter material of the chin section have a higher breathing resistance than the filter material of the mouth section,” as claimed, because the exhalation filter element has a lower resistance than the filter material of the mask body (i.e., the filter material of the top and bottom panels 12, 16 of Facer). See Japuntich [0058].
Regarding claim 3, Facer teaches that a tactility of the filter material of the central panel 14 is different than that of the top and bottom panels 12, 16, because the central panel 14 has a stiffening layer 58, while the other panels 12, 16 do not. See Facer Figs. 8a, 8b, [0053], [0055]. Also, a permeability to aerosols and particles of the filter material of the top panel 12 is lower than the other panels 14, 16, because the top panel 12 can have has an increased pressure loss compared to the other panels 14, 16. See Facer [0047]. Also, a sealing functionality of the top and bottom panels 12, 16 is greater than the central panel 14, because the top and bottom panels 12, 16 are relatively compliant to aid sealing to the wearer’s face. See Facer [0055].
Regarding claim 4, Facer teaches that the filter material of each of the top, central and bottom panels 12, 14, 16 comprises a layer structure. See Facer Figs. 8a, 8b, [0044], [0053], [0072]. The layer structure of the central panel 14 comprises four material layers and the layer structure of the top and bottom panels 12, 16 comprises three material layers, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. The layer structure filter material of the central panel 14 differs from the layer structure of the filter material of the top and bottom panels 12, 16, in terms of number, arrangement and type of material layers—because the central panel 14 comprises stiffening layer 58 while the top and bottom panels 12, 16 do not. Id. at Figs. 8a, 8b, [0053].
Regarding claim 5, Facer teaches that the filter material of the central panel 14 (the “mouth section”) has a greater stiffness than the filter material of the top and bottom panels 12, 14 (the “nose section” and the “chin section”). This is because the filter material of the central panel 14 comprises stiffening layer 58, while the top and bottom panels 12, 14 lack a stiffening layer. See Facer Figs. 8a, 8b, [0053].
Facer differs from claim 7 because it is silent as to the basis weight of the central panel 14 compared to the top and bottom panels 12, 16. But Facer teaches that a higher basis weights provide greater resistance to deformation. See Facer [0068]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the greater stiffness of the central panel 14 to be a result of it having a greater basis weight than the top and bottom panels 12, 16, because basis weight and stiffness are directly proportional.
Regarding claim 6, Facer teaches that the filter material of each of the top and bottom panels 12, 16 (the “nose section” and the “chin section”) has a weight per unit area between 20 g/m2 and 100 g/m2, because the filter material of each panel comprises a cover web with a basis weight of 50 gsm (gsm stands for g/m2). See Facer [0072].
The filter material of the central panel 16 (the “mouth section”) has a weight per unit area of between 15 to 100 grams per square meter, because the filter layer 56 can have this basis weight. See Facer [0058]. The prior art range of 15 to 100 g/m2 overlaps with the claimed range of 40 to 500 g/m2, establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Note that it also would have been obvious for the entire filter structure of the top, central and bottom panels 12, 14, 16 to have basis weights within the claimed ranges. As noted, the top and bottom panels 12, 16 each comprise a 3-layered filter material comprising an outer cover layer 60, a filtration layer 56 and an outer cover web 54. See Facer [0053]. The central panel 14 comprises a 4-layered filter material comprising cover layers 60, 54, filtration layer 56 and stiffening layer 58. The cover layers 54, 60 can each have a basis weight between 15 and 35 g/m2, the filtration layer 56 can have a basis weight of 15 to 100 g/m2, and the stiffening layer 58 can have a basis weight of 90 g/m2. Id. at [0058], [0062] [0075].
Basis weight is recognized in the art as being a result effective variable because it impacts the strength and permeability of a facemask. See Iwamoto [0129]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to optimize the basis weight of the filter material in each of the panels 12, 14, 16 to achieve the desired strength and permeability. A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed basis weight ranges, because Facer provides that the various layers of each of the filter materials have a basis weight within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 8, Facer teaches that each of the panels 12, 14, 16 are bonded to one another at the lines of demarcation 18, 20 (the “plurality of connection sections”) because they are attached to one another at the lines of demarcation 18, 20. See Facer [0046].
Regarding claim 9, Facer teaches that the lines of demarcation 18, 20 (the “plurality of connection sections”) form a folding area for the folding process, because the lines of demarcation act has hinges for the top and bottom panels 12, 16. See Facer [0046].
Regarding claim 10, Facer teaches that the filtration layer 56 for each panel 12, 14, 16 is a mechanical filter, as claimed, because the fibrous structure of this layer 56 will physically collect particulate matter. See Facer [0057]–[0058]. The filtration layer 56 can also comprise an electret material and can be charged using tribocharging. Id.
Regarding claim 11, Facer teaches that the filter material of each of the panels 12, 14, 16 is configured as nonwoven textile filter materials, because the filter materials for each panel comprises non-woven materials. For instance, the stiffening layer 58 can be a spun bond web (see Facer [0056]), the filtration layer 56 can be a meltblown material (id. at [0057]) and the cover webs 54, 60 can be a spunbond material (id. at [0072]).
Regarding claim 12, Facer teaches that the filtration layer 56 for each panel 12, 14, 16 is a mechanical filter, as claimed, because the fibrous structure of this layer 56 will physically collect particulate matter. See Facer [0057]–[0058]. The filtration layer 56 can also comprise an electret material and can be charged using tribocharging. Id. The filtration layer 56 can also be an odor-absorbing filter material. Id.
Regarding claim 13, Facer teaches that the filtration layer 56 of the central panel 14 (the “mouth section”) is a mechanical filter, as claimed, because the fibrous structure of this layer 56 will physically collect particulate matter. See Facer [0057]–[0058]. The filtration layer 56 can also comprise an electret material and can be charged using tribocharging. Id. The filtration layer 56 can also be an odor-absorbing filter material. Id.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Facer et al., US 2008/0271739 A1 in view of Orofino, US 2015/0306432 A1 in view of Japuntich et al., US 2003/0005934 A1 and in further view of Arons et al., US 4,217,386.
Regarding claim 2, Facer teaches that the filter material of each of the panels 12, 14, 16 includes a layer of nonwoven textile filter, because each panel comprises outer cover layers 54, 60 that are nonwoven materials. See Facer Figs. 8a, 8b, [0053], [0072].
Facer differs from claim 2 because it fails to disclose that the filter material of each panel 12, 14, 16 comprises a layer of woven filter material.
But each panel comprises a filtration layer 56. See Facer Figs. 8a, 8b, [0053]. The filtration layer 56 can comprise multiple layers of material, and can include a sorbent component for removing hazardous odorous gases from the air. Id. at [0057].
Arons discloses a fabric that can be used in a facemask, for protecting personnel against toxic chemical vapors. See Arons col. 1, ll. 11–14. The fabric includes a woven active carbon fabric 11. Id. at Fig. 1, col. 2, ll. 28–40. The fabric is beneficial because it is highly sorbent. Id. at col. 1, ll. 31–40.
PNG
media_image3.png
353
472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the filtration layer 56 of each of the panels 12, 14, 16 of Facer to comprise the fabric of Arons to provide a highly sorbent material with the facemask 10. With this modification, the woven active carbon fabric 11 reads on the woven textile filter material of claim 2.
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Facer et al., US 2008/0271739 A1 in view of Orofino, US 2015/0306432 A1 in view of Japuntich et al., US 2003/0005934 A1 and in further view of Weinberg, US 2009/0277451 A1.
Regarding claims 14 and 17, Facer teaches that the mask 10 seals against the face of the wear at the perimeter of the upper panel 12 (the “nose sealing line”) and the perimeter of the lower panel 16 (the “chin sealing line”). See Facer [0057].
Facer differs from claims 14 and 17 because if fails to disclose a coating arranged on the perimeter that provides a seal during contact with the corresponding parts of a face of the user.
But Weinberg discloses a respiratory facial mask comprising an adhesive layer 8 around the perimeter, that seals the mask against the face of the user. See Weinberg Fig. 6, [0060]. The adhesive layer 8 is beneficial because it prevents leakage around the mask. Id. at [0011].
It would have been obvious to provide the adhesive layer 8 of Weinberg around the perimeter of the mask 10 in Facer to prevent leakage from the respirator. With this modification, the adhesive layer 8 reads on the “coating” of claims 14 and 17.
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Facer et al., US 2008/0271739 A1 in view of Orofino, US 2015/0306432 A1 in view of Japuntich et al., US 2003/0005934 A1 and in further view of Gazzara, US 5,934,275.
Regarding claim 15, Facer as modified teaches that the “plurality of connection sections” include:
A “mouth connection section arranged adjacent to the mouth section,” which is the area of the central panel 14 that connects to the top panel 12, as seen in Fig. 4.
A “nose connection section arranged adjacent to the nose section,” which is the area of the top panel 12 that connects to the central panel 14, as seen in Fig. 4. The “mouth connection section” and the “nose connection section” have a connection to each other, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 4.
A “chin connection section arranged adjacent to the chin section,” which is the area of the bottom panel 16 that connects to the central panel 14, as seen in Fig. 4.
Also, “another mouth connection section arranged adjacent to the mouth section,” which is the area of the central panel 14 that connects to the bottom panel 16, as seen in Fig. 4. The “another mouth connection section” and the “chin connection section” have a connection to each other, as claimed, as seen in Fig. 4.
Facer as modified differs from claim 15 because it is silent as to the nose, mouth, another mouth and chin connection sections being different than the filter material of the nose, mouth and chin sections.
But Gazzara disclsoes a face mask comprising reinforcing seams 28, 30, 32, 34 that are located around the edges of the cover material of the filter material of the mask, to prevent fraying around the edges of the filter material and to prevent splitting between the layers when the cover material. See Gazzara Fig. 5, col. 11, ll. 11–23.
It would have been obvious for the perimeter edges of each section 12, 14, 16 of Facer to comprise reinforcing seams to prevent fraying around the edges and to prevent individual layers of the filter material from separating.
With this modification, the nose, mouth, another mouth and chin connection sections of Facer are different than the filter material of each section 12, 14, 16 because the nose, mouth, another mouth and chin connection sections comprise reinforcing seams while the filter material does not.
Regarding claim 18, Facer as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Facer as modified differs from claim 18 because it is silent as to the “nose sealing line” being formed from a material different than a material than the filter material of the top section 12 (the “nose section”) with the “chin sealing line” being formed of a material different than the filter material of the bottom section 16 (the “chin section”), as claimed.
But Gazzara disclsoes a face mask comprising reinforcing seams 28, 30, 32, 34 that are located around the edges of the cover material of the filter material of the mask, to prevent fraying around the edges of the filter material and to prevent splitting between the layers when the cover material. See Gazzara Fig. 5, col. 11, ll. 11–23.
It would have been obvious for the perimeter edges of each section 12, 14, 16 of Facer to comprise reinforcing seams to prevent fraying around the edges and to prevent individual layers of the filter material from separating.
With this modification, the “nose sealing line” and the “chin sealing line” are formed from a material different than a material than the filter material of the top section and bottom sections 12, 16, as claimed, because the nose and chin sealing lines include the reinforcing seams while the filter material of the top and bottom sections does not include the reinforcing seams.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Facer et al., US 2008/0271739 A1 in view of Orofino, US 2015/0306432 A1 in view of Japuntich et al., US 2003/0005934 A1 in view of Gazzara, US 5,934,275 and in further view of Zheng et al., CN 103271464 A.
Regarding claim 16, Facer as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15, as explained above.
Facer as modified differs from claim 16 because it is silent as to the connection sections having the orientations as claimed.
But Zhen teaches a mask for purifying air, comprising top, middle and lower section (top body 12, middle body 11, lower body 12) with the top and middle section connected together, and the middle and lower sections connected together at a plurality of connection sections. The top, middle and lower section a longitudinal direction (the direction from left to right, seen in Fig. 1) and a transverse direction (the direction from top to bottom, seen in Fig. 1).
The plurality of connection sections include:
A “mouth connection section” arranged adjacent to the middle body 11, which is the perimeter of the middle body 11 that attaches to the top body 12. See Zheng Fig. 1, [0035].
A “nose connection section” arranged adjacent to the top body 12, which is the perimeter of the top body 12 that attaches to the middle body 11. See Zheng Fig. 1, [0035].
The mouth connection section and nose connection section have a connection 19 to each other in a middle area with respect to the longitudinal direction, as seen in Fig. 1. This connection 19 does not extend to longitudinal ends of the top body 12 and the middle body 11 (the nose and mouth sections) as seen in Fig. 1.
A “chin connection section” arranged adjacent to the bottom body 12, which is the perimeter of the lower body 12 that attaches to the middle body 11. See Zheng Fig. 1, [0035].
“[A]nother mouth connection section” arranged adjacent to the middle body 11, which is the perimeter of the middle body 11 that attaches to the lower body 12.
The another mouth connection section and the chin connection section have a connection 19 to each other, as seen in Fig. 1. This connection 19 does not extend to longitudinal ends of the middle body 11 and bottom body (the mouth and chin sections) seen in Fig. 1.
The mouth connection section and the nose connection section extend longitudinally and transversely beyond the connection 19 of the mouth connection section and the nose connection section, as seen in Fig. 1.
The another mouth connection section and the chin connection section extend longitudinally and transversely beyond the connection 19 of the another mouth connection section and the chin connection section, as seen in Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image4.png
948
2009
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The mask of Zhang is manufactured by providing the three sections seen in Fig. 1, and then connecting the connection sections together to form a three-panel mask as seen in Figs. 3 and 4.
It would have been obvious for the three-panel mask of Facer to have the construction of Zheng because this is a conventional configuration for manufacturing a three-panel face mask.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights