DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed March 8, 2024 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
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.
Claims 4, 7-9, and 15 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 4 recites the limitation “a padding” (line 2). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates to the previously-recited “a padding” (claim 1, line 4). For purposes of examination, the recitations of “a padding” in both claims 1 and 4 will be interpreted as referring to the same padding. Clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a padding” (line 2). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates to the previously-recited “a padding” (claim 1, line 4). For purposes of examination, the recitations of “a padding” in both claims 1 and 7 will be interpreted as referring to the same padding. Clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a padding” (line 2). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates to the previously-recited “a padding” (claim 1, line 4). For purposes of examination, the recitations of “a padding” in both claims 1 and 8 will be interpreted as referring to the same padding. Clarification is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “padding” (line 2). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates to the previously-recited “a padding” (claim 1, line 4). For purposes of examination, the recitations of “padding” in both claims 1 and 9 will be interpreted as referring to the same padding. Clarification is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a padding” (line 2). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how it relates to the previously-recited “a padding” (claim 12, line 6). For purposes of examination, the recitations of “a padding” in both claims 12 and 15 will be interpreted as referring to the same padding. Clarification 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.
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 1-5, 9-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 6,155,261 Day in view of USPN 9,739,916 Weber et al. and in further view of USPN 5,818,569 Berent.
To claim 1, Day discloses a face mask (10) (see Figures 2 and 4-6; Abstract; col. 3, line 58 – col. 6, line 28) with tinted lenses (col. 4, lines 63-67) comprising:
a soft (col. 5, lines 61-63) body member (16) configured to fit comfortably over the orbital region of the face of a wearer (see Figures 2 and 4-6; col. 5, lines 1-41);
a padding (22) about at least a portion of a perimetric interior surface of the soft body member (see especially Figure 2; col. 4, lines 51-62);
a pair of lenses (12) configured to filter out light disposed in the soft body member (see Figures 2 and 4-6; col. 4, lines 33-42 and 63-67); and
a soft or pliant (col. 5, line 64 – col. 6, line 5) strap member (20) disposed to secure the face mask upon the wearer's face (see Figures 2 and 4; col. 5, line 64 – col. 6, line 5), wherein:
the face mask conforms to the wearer's face as a soft surface against which the wearer is not discomforted when placing pressure against the face mask when worn (see Figures 2 and 4-6; col. 5, lines 1-50; functional); and
the padding permits eyes of the wearer to open and close without contacting the face mask (see especially Figure 5; col. 5, lines 19-41).
It is respectfully noted that the limitation “the face mask conforms to the wearer's face as a soft surface against which the wearer is not discomforted when placing pressure against the face mask when worn” is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function. As Day discloses the structure of the face mask as claimed, there would be a reasonable expectation for the face mask of Day to perform this recited function.
Day discloses a face mask with lenses that may be tinted to shade the wearer’s eyes (col. 4, lines 63-67).
Day does not expressly disclose a face mask with blue blocking lenses configured to filter out blue light.
However, Weber teaches lenses used to filter out blue light (Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-49).
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 the lenses of Day to filter out blue light as taught by Weber because Weber teaches that this configuration is known in the art and aids with sleeping (col. 1, lines 21-49).
The modified invention of Day (i.e., Day in view of Weber, as detailed above) teaches a face mask with a “pliable” soft body member 16 configured to conform to the face of a wearer and as such it is respectfully asserted that body member 16 would therefore possess a least some degree of softness.
However, in the interest of promoting compact prosecution, because the modified invention of Day does not explicitly describe body member 16 as being “soft,” it is noted that Berent teaches a face mask (10) (see especially Figures 4-6) comprising a soft body member (col. 3, lines 38-44).
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 body member 16 of the modified invention of Day to be soft as taught by Berent because Berent teaches that this configuration is known in the art and beneficial for being soft against the skin of a wearer (col. 3, lines 38-44).
To claim 2, the modified invention of Day (i.e., Day in view of Weber and Berent, as detailed above) further teaches a face mask with blue blocking lenses wherein each of the pair of lenses is pliable and non-rigid (col. 2, lines 43-54 of Berent).
To claim 3, the modified invention of Day (i.e., Day in view of Weber and Berent, as detailed above) further teaches a face mask with blue blocking lenses wherein the strap member comprises two, non-elastic members (12,14 of Berent) which are fastenable together (see Figures 1-2 and col. 2, lines 6-25 of Berent).
To claim 4, (insofar as definite and as best understood by the Examiner) the modified invention of Day (i.e., Day in view of Weber and Berent, as detailed above) further teaches a face mask with blue blocking lenses wherein the face mask further comprises a padding (22 of Day) disposed to contact at least the interciliary space of the wearer whereby the face mask softly fits covering the wearer's orbital region even when pressured against the wearer's face such as when the wearer is lying face down while wearing the face mask (see Figures 2, and 4-6 and col. 4, lines 56-62, and col. 5, lines 1-40 of Day; functional).
It is respectfully noted that the limitation “disposed to contact at least the interciliary space of the wearer whereby the face mask softly fits covering the wearer's orbital region even when pressured against the wearer's face such as when the wearer is lying face down while wearing the face mask” is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function. As the modified invention of Day teaches the structure of the face mask as claimed, there would be a reasonable expectation for the face mask of the modified invention of Day to perform this recited function.
To claim 5, the modified invention of Day (i.e., Day in view of Weber and Berent, as detailed above) further teaches a face mask with blue blocking lenses wherein the strap member is elastic (col. 5, line 64 – col. 6, line 5 of Day).
To claim 9, (insofar as definite and as best understood by Examiner) the modified invention of Day (i.e., Day in view of Weber, Berent, and DuBois, as detailed above) further teaches a face mask with blue light blocking lenses further comprising padding (22 of Day) disposed perimetrically around an interior surface of the face mask in a continuous and uninterrupted manner (see especially Figure 2 and col. 4, lines 51-62 of Day).
To claim 10, the modified invention of Day (i.e., Day in view of Weber and Berent, as detailed above) further teaches a face mask with blue blocking lenses wherein the pair of lenses consists of a first lens (12 of Day) and a second lens (12 of Day), at least one of which is a prescription lens (see especially Figure 5 and col. 4, lines 63-67 of Day).
To claim 11, the modified invention of Day (i.e., Day in view of Weber and Berent, as detailed above) further teaches a face mask with blue blocking lenses wherein the pair of lenses consists of a first lens and a second lens, at least one of which is a sunglass lens (col. 4, lines 63-67 of Day).
To claim 12, Day discloses a sleep mask (10) (see Figures 2 and 4-6; Abstract; col. 3, line 58 – col. 6, line 28) with light blocking lenses (col. 4, lines 63-67) comprising:
a soft (col. 5, lines 61-63) body member (16) configured to fit comfortably over the orbital region of the face of a wearer (see Figures 2 and 4-6; col. 5, lines 1-41);
a pair of lenses (12) configured to filter out light disposed in the soft body member (see Figures 2 and 4-6; col. 4, lines 33-42 and 63-67);
a padding (22) about at least a portion of a perimetric interior surface of the soft body member (see especially Figure 2; col. 4, lines 51-62); and
a soft or pliant (col. 5, line 64 – col. 6, line 5) strap member (20) disposed to secure the sleep mask upon the wearer's face (see Figures 2 and 4; col. 5, line 64 – col. 6, line 5), wherein:
the sleep mask conforms to the wearer's face as a soft surface against which the wearer is not discomforted when placing pressure against the sleep mask when worn (see Figures 2 and 4-6; col. 5, lines 1-50; functional);
the pair of lenses consist essentially of a first lens (12) and a second lens (12) disposed in a non-overlapping, side-by-side arrangement (see especially Figure 5; col. 4, lines 63-67); and
the padding permits eyes of the wearer to open and close without contacting the sleep mask (see especially Figure 5; col. 5, lines 19-41).
It is respectfully noted that the limitation “the sleep mask conforms to the wearer's face as a soft surface against which the wearer is not discomforted when placing pressure against the sleep mask when worn” is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function. As Day discloses the structure of the sleep mask as claimed, there would be a reasonable expectation for the sleep mask of Day to perform this recited function.
Day discloses a sleep mask with lenses that may be tinted to shade the wearer’s eyes (col. 4, lines 63-67).
Day does not expressly disclose a sleep mask with blue blocking lenses configured to filter out blue light.
However, Weber teaches lenses used to filter out blue light (Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-49).
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 the lenses of Day to filter out blue light as taught by Weber because Weber teaches that this configuration is known in the art and aids with sleeping (col. 1, lines 21-49).
The modified invention of Day (i.e., Day in view of Weber, as detailed above) teaches a sleep mask with a “pliable” soft body member 16 configured to conform to the face of a wearer and as such it is respectfully asserted that body member 16 would therefore possess a least some degree of softness.
However, in the interest of promoting compact prosecution, because the modified invention of Day does not explicitly describe body member 16 as being “soft,” it is noted that Berent teaches a sleep mask (10) (see especially Figures 4-6) comprising a soft body member (col. 3, lines 38-44).
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 body member 16 of the modified invention of Day to be soft as taught by Berent because Berent teaches that this configuration is known in the art and beneficial for being soft against the skin of a wearer (col. 3, lines 38-44).
To claim 13, the modified invention of Day (i.e., Day in view of Weber and Berent, as detailed above) further teaches a sleep mask with blue blocking lenses wherein each of the pair of lenses is pliable and non-rigid (col. 2, lines 43-54 of Berent).
To claim 14, the modified invention of Day (i.e., Day in view of Weber and Berent, as detailed above) further teaches a sleep mask with blue blocking lenses wherein the strap member comprises two, non-elastic members (12,14 of Berent) which are fastenable together (see Figures 1-2 and col. 2, lines 6-25 of Berent).
To claim 15, (insofar as definite and as best understood by the Examiner) the modified invention of Day (i.e., Day in view of Weber and Berent, as detailed above) further teaches a sleep mask with blue blocking lenses wherein the sleep mask further comprises a padding (22 of Day) disposed to contact at least the interciliary space of the wearer whereby the sleep mask softly fits covering the wearer's orbital region even when pressured against the wearer's face such as when the wearer is lying face down while wearing the sleep mask (see Figures 2, and 4-6 and col. 4, lines 56-62, and col. 5, lines 1-40 of Day; functional).
It is respectfully noted that the limitation “disposed to contact at least the interciliary space of the wearer whereby the sleep mask softly fits covering the wearer's orbital region even when pressured against the wearer's face such as when the wearer is lying face down while wearing the sleep mask” is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function. As the modified invention of Day teaches the structure of the sleep mask as claimed, there would be a reasonable expectation for the sleep mask of the modified invention of Day to perform this recited function.
To claim 16, the modified invention of Day (i.e., Day in view of Weber and Berent, as detailed above) further teaches a sleep mask with blue blocking lenses wherein the strap member is elastic (col. 5, line 64 – col. 6, line 5 of Day).
To claim 18, Day discloses a sleep mask (10) (see Figures 2 and 4-6; Abstract; col. 3, line 58 – col. 6, line 28) with light blocking lenses (col. 4, lines 63-67) comprising:
a soft (col. 5, lines 61-63) body member (16) configured to fit comfortably over the orbital region of the face of a wearer (see Figures 2 and 4-6; col. 5, lines 1-41);
a pair of lenses (12) configured to filter out light disposed in the soft body member (see Figures 2 and 4-6; col. 4, lines 33-42 and 63-67);
padding (22) disposed perimetrically around an interior surface of the sleep mask in a continuous and uninterrupted manner (see especially Figure 2; col. 4, lines 51-62); and
a soft or pliant (col. 5, line 64 – col. 6, line 5) strap member (20) disposed to secure the sleep mask upon the wearer's face (see Figures 2 and 4; col. 5, line 64 – col. 6, line 5), wherein:
the sleep mask conforms to the wearer's face as a soft surface against which the wearer is not discomforted when placing pressure against the sleep mask when worn (see Figures 2 and 4-6; col. 5, lines 1-50; functional);
the pair of lenses consists of a first lens (12) and a second lens (12), separate and distinct from the first lens, disposed in a non-overlapping, side-by-side arrangement (see especially Figure 5; col. 4, lines 63-67); and
the padding permits eyes of the wearer to open and close without contacting the sleep mask (see especially Figure 5; col. 5, lines 19-41).
It is respectfully noted that the limitation “the sleep mask conforms to the wearer's face as a soft surface against which the wearer is not discomforted when placing pressure against the sleep mask when worn” is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function. As Day discloses the structure of the sleep mask as claimed, there would be a reasonable expectation for the sleep mask of Day to perform this recited function.
Day discloses a sleep mask with lenses that may be tinted to shade the wearer’s eyes (col. 4, lines 63-67).
Day does not expressly disclose a sleep mask with blue blocking lenses configured to filter out blue light.
However, Weber teaches lenses used to filter out blue light (Abstract; col. 1, lines 21-49).
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 the lenses of Day to filter out blue light as taught by Weber because Weber teaches that this configuration is known in the art and aids with sleeping (col. 1, lines 21-49).
The modified invention of Day (i.e., Day in view of Weber, as detailed above) teaches a sleep mask with a “pliable” soft body member 16 configured to conform to the face of a wearer and as such it is respectfully asserted that body member 16 would therefore possess a least some degree of softness.
However, in the interest of promoting compact prosecution, because the modified invention of Day does not explicitly describe body member 16 as being “soft,” it is noted that Berent teaches a sleep mask (10) (see especially Figures 4-6) comprising a soft body member (col. 3, lines 38-44).
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 body member 16 of the modified invention of Day to be soft as taught by Berent because Berent teaches that this configuration is known in the art and beneficial for being soft against the skin of a wearer (col. 3, lines 38-44).
To claim 19, the modified invention of Day (i.e., Day in view of Weber and Berent, as detailed above) further teaches a sleep mask with blue blocking lenses wherein each of the pair of lenses is pliable and non-rigid (col. 2, lines 43-54 of Berent).
To claim 20, the modified invention of Day (i.e., Day in view of Weber and Berent, as detailed above) further teaches a sleep mask with blue blocking lenses wherein the strap member comprises two, non-elastic members (12,14 of Berent) which are fastenable together (see Figures 1-2 and col. 2, lines 6-25 of Berent).
Claims 6-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day in view of Weber and Berent and in further view of US Pub No. 2023/0000188 Dubois et al.
To claim 6, the modified invention of Day (i.e., Day in view of Weber and Berent, as detailed above) teaches a face mask with blue blocking lenses as recited in claims 1-2 and 5, above.
The modified invention of Day does not expressly teach a face mask with blue blocking lenses wherein the strap member is elastic and wherein the strap member is disposed interior to a fabric sheath.
However, Dubois teaches a face mask (10) (see Figures 1-6) comprising a strap member (700) (see Figures 1-5; paras. 0077-0078) wherein the strap member is elastic and wherein the strap member is disposed interior to a fabric sheath (see Figures 1-5; paras. 0077-0078).
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 the strap member of the modified invention of Day to be an elastic strap member as taught by Dubois because Dubois teaches that this configuration is known in the art and beneficial for securing the face mask to a wearer’s facial features (paras. 0077-0078). It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the silk or satin material of Dubois would provide comfort for the wearer. It would additionally further have been obvious as a simple substitution of one well-known head strap with another to yield the predictable result of securing the face mask upon the wearer’s face.
To claim 7, (insofar as definite and as best understood by Examiner) the modified invention of Day (i.e., Day in view of Weber, Berent, and DuBois, as detailed above) further teaches a face mask with blue light blocking lenses wherein the face mask further comprises a padding (22 of Day) disposed to contact at least the interciliary space of the wearer whereby the face mask softly fits against the wearer's face even when pressured against the wearer's face such as when the wearer is lying face down while wearing the face mask (see Figures 2, and 4-6 and col. 4, lines 56-62, and col. 5, lines 1-40 of Day; functional).
It is respectfully noted that the limitation “disposed to contact at least the interciliary space of the wearer whereby the face mask softly fits against the wearer's face even when pressured against the wearer's face such as when the wearer is lying face down while wearing the face mask” is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function. As the modified invention of Day teaches the structure of the face mask as claimed, there would be a reasonable expectation for the face mask of the modified invention of Day to perform this recited function.
To claim 8, (insofar as definite and as best understood by Examiner) the modified invention of Day (i.e., Day in view of Weber, Berent, and DuBois, as detailed above) further teaches a face mask with blue light blocking lenses wherein the face mask further comprises a padding (22 of Day) disposed to at least selectively contact the wearer around the orbital region of the wearer's face (see Figures 2, and 4-6 and col. 4, lines 56-62, and col. 5, lines 1-40 of Day).
To claim 17, the modified invention of Day (i.e., Day in view of Weber and Berent, as detailed above) teaches a sleep mask with blue blocking lenses as recited in claims 12-13 and 16, above.
The modified invention of Day does not expressly teach a sleep mask with blue blocking lenses wherein the strap member is disposed interior to a fabric sheath.
However, Dubois teaches a sleep mask (10) (see Figures 1-6) comprising a strap member (700) (see Figures 1-5; paras. 0077-0078) wherein the strap member is disposed interior to a fabric sheath (see Figures 1-5; paras. 0077-0078).
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 the strap member of the modified invention of Day to be an elastic strap member as taught by Dubois because Dubois teaches that this configuration is known in the art and beneficial for securing the sleep mask to a wearer’s facial features (paras. 0077-0078). It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the silk or satin material of Dubois would provide comfort for the wearer. It would additionally further have been obvious as a simple substitution of one well-known head strap with another to yield the predictable result of securing the sleep mask upon the wearer’s face.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRIFFIN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at (571) 272-3425. 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.
/F Griffin Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732