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 application as filed on 04-03-2024. As directed, claims 1-20 are currently pending examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 17, line 1, it is suggested that “of” be eliminated for clarity.
At claim 20, line 3, it is suggested that “a wearer” be replaced with “the wearer” as the limitation was previously introduced at line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cowey (WO 2023/099904).
Regarding claim 1, Cowey discloses a protective device (10) (page 13, lines 27-30; Fig. 1), comprising:
a filter assembly (14 including filter 26) (page 13, line 34-page 14, line 3; page 14, lines 7-12 and 23-30; Figs. 1-2), the filter assembly (14 including filter 26) including:
a transparent panel (28) (page 17, lines 2-4 and 8-17; Fig. 2);
a first filter (left side of filter 26 in Fig. 2) positioned on a first side of the transparent panel (28) (page 15, lines 1-4; Fig. 2; Examiner notes that claim 2 limits the first and second filter to be attached); and
a second filter (right side of filter 26 in Fig. 2) positioned on a second side of the transparent panel (28) (page 15, lines 1-4; Fig. 2; Examiner notes that claim 2 limits the first and second filter to be attached);
a first temple arm (top left fixture point 46 in Fig. 2 and included attachment to a strap) coupled to the filter assembly (14 including filter 26) (page 25, lines 19-26; Fig. 2); and
a second temple arm (top right fixture point 46 in Fig. 2 and included attachment to a strap) coupled to the filter assembly (14 including filter 26) (page 25, lines 19-26; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Cowey discloses the protective device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cowey further discloses wherein the first filter (left side of filter 26 in Fig. 2) is attached to the second filter (right side of filter 26 in Fig. 2) (page 15, lines 1-4; Fig. 2, note that the left and right sides of filter 26 are connected by middle filter portion at the extreme bottom of the mask).
Regarding claim 3, Cowey discloses the protective device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cowey further discloses wherein the filter assembly (14 including filter 26) further comprises a gasket (38) positioned around a perimeter of the filter assembly (14 including filter 26) (page 14, lines 18-22; Figs. 1 and 4).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowey (WO 2023/099904), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Marsh (US 2022/0395711).
Regarding claim 4, Cowey discloses the protective device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cowey fails to disclose wherein the transparent panel has a width of at least 10 mm.
However, Marsh teaches a protective device (10) (paragraph 104, lines 1-2; Fig. 1) that includes a transparent panel (34) (paragraph 136, lines 1-7; Fig. 1), wherein a width of the transparent panel (34) is at least 10 mm (paragraph 138, see T2 dimensioned to be “at least 100 mm”; Fig. 3).
In the case where the range disclosed in the prior art overlaps the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the claimed range of at least 10 mm is overlapped by the prior art range of at least 100 mm. Given that each discrete range point of 100 or more millimeters satisfies the claimed range, 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 width of the transparent panel to be at least 100 mm, as taught by Marsh, in order to provide a wide enough transparent space such that the mouth of the wearer can be adequately seen.
Regarding claim 5, Cowey discloses the protective device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cowey fails to disclose wherein the transparent panel has a width of between 10 mm and 72 mm.
However, Marsh teaches a protective device (10) (paragraph 104, lines 1-2; Fig. 1) wherein a width of the protective device (10) is given to be at least 60 mm (paragraph 116, see “Ww of “at least 60 mm”; Fig. 2).
In the case where the range disclosed in the prior art overlaps the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the claimed range of between 10 mm and 72 mm is overlapped by the prior art range of at least 60 mm. Given that there exist several discrete range points of 60 or more millimeters that satisfy a portion of the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Given that Cowey provides the entire cover portion 14 to be transparent, and Marsh’s width (Ww) is for the entire protective device, 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 width of the Cowey protective device, which encompasses the width of the transparent panel, to be at least 60 mm, as taught by Marsh, in order to provide a wide enough device to adequately shield and protect the user’s nose and mouth from the external environment.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowey (WO 2023/099904), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Zhang (US 2022/0096879).
Regarding claim 6, Cowey discloses the protective device of claim 1, as discussed above.
Cowey fails to disclose an eye shield positioned above the filter assembly.
However, Zhang teaches a protective device (100) comprising an analogous filter assembly (see 102, 104, 106, and 108 in Fig. 2) (paragraph 28, lines 1-7; Figs. 1-2), including an eye shield (112) positioned above the filter assembly to protect the wearer’s eyes from direct exposure to fluid flow (see 102, 104, 106, and 108 in Fig. 2) (paragraph 42, lines 1-10; Figs. 2, 4, and 7).
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 device of Cowey to further include an eye shield positioned above the filter assembly, as taught by Zhang, in order to protect the wearer’s eyes from direct exposure to fluid flow.
Regarding claim 7, Cowey in view of Zhang disclose the protective device of claim 6, as discussed above.
As presently modified, modified Cowey fails to disclose a bridge positioned between the filter assembly and the eye shield, wherein the bridge couples the filter assembly to the eye shield.
However, Zhang further teaches a bridge (118) positioned between the filter assembly (see 102, 104, 106, and 108 in Fig. 2) and the eye shield (112), wherein the bridge (118) couples the filter assembly (see 102, 104, 106, and 108 in Fig. 2) to the eye shield (112) (paragraph 42, lines 1-10; Figs. 2, 4, and 7).
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 device of Cowey to include a bridge positioned between the filter assembly and the eye shield, wherein the bridge couples the filter assembly to the eye shield, as further taught by Zhang, in order to provide a place for attachment of the eye shield relative to the protective device.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowey (WO 2023/099904) in view of Zhang (US 2022/0096879), as applied to claim 6 above, in further view of Flynn (US 6,543,450).
Regarding claim 8, Cowey in view of Zhang disclose the protective device of claim 6, as discussed above.
Modified Cowey fails to disclose wherein the eye shield comprises anti-fog material.
However, Flynn teaches a protective device (1) including an eye shield (2) wherein the eye shield (2) comprises anti-fog material in order to provide clearer vision/viewing through the shield (Col. 4, lines 27-30; Col. 6, lines 44-50; Figs. 1-2A).
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 eye shield of modified Cowey to further include an anti-fog material such as an anti-fogging agent, as taught by Flynn, in order to provide clearer vision/viewing through the shield.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowey (WO 2023/099904) in view of Marsh (US 2022/0395711).
Regarding claim 9, Cowey discloses a filter (26) (page 14, lines 23-27; page 15, lines 1-3; Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a left portion (left side of filter 26 in Fig. 2);
a right portion (right side of filter 26 in Fig. 2) integral to the left portion (left side of filter 26 in Fig. 2) (page 14, lines 23-27; page 15, lines 1-3, note that the filter 26 is referred to singularly, and thus is taken to be an integral piece);
a gap between the left portion (left side of filter 26 in Fig. 2) and the right portion (right side of filter 26 in Fig. 2) having a width (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
455
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Cowey
While Cowey discloses that the width of the annotated gap traverses the width of Cowey’s transparent panel (28) (page 17, lines 2-4 and 8-17; Fig. 2), Cowey fails to disclose wherein the gap is greater than 10 mm.
However, Marsh teaches a protective device (10) (paragraph 104, lines 1-2; Fig. 1) that includes a transparent panel (34) (paragraph 136, lines 1-7; Fig. 1), wherein a width of the transparent panel (34) is at least 10 mm (paragraph 138, see T2 dimensioned to be “at least 100 mm”; Fig. 3).
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 width of a transparent panel to be at least 100 mm, as taught by Marsh, in order to provide a wide enough transparent space such that the mouth of the wearer can be adequately seen. This modification thus leads to the claimed gap having a width of greater than 100 mm, given that the gap of Cowey as shown in annotated Figure 2 above coincides with a width of Cowey’s transparent panel (Cowey: page 15, lines 5-9 and Fig. 2). It is further noted that in the case where the range disclosed in the prior art overlaps the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the claimed range of at least 10 mm is overlapped by the prior art range of at least 100 mm. Given that each discrete range point of 100 or more millimeters satisfies the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 10, Cowey in view of Marsh disclose the filter of claim 9, as discussed above.
Cowey further discloses wherein the filter (26) is configured to removably attach to a frame (14) (page 14, lines 7-10 and 23-27; page 20, lines 25-30; Figs. 1-2), the frame (14) having a perimeter and a transparent panel (28) spanning a height of the perimeter (note that the frontmost outer edge of cover 14 in Fig. 5 defines the perimeter, and per Fig. 5, 28 spans that height; see annotated Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
516
406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Cowey
Regarding claim 11, Cowey in view of Marsh disclose the filter of claim 9, as discussed above.
Cowey further discloses wherein the left portion (left side of filter 26 in Fig. 2) and the right portion (right side of filter 26 in Fig. 2) are symmetrical (page 15, lines 1-4; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Cowey in view of Marsh disclose the filter of claim 9, as discussed above.
Cowey further discloses wherein the left portion (left side of filter 26 in Fig. 2) is connected to the right portion (right side of filter 26 in Fig. 2) via a connection portion, wherein the connection portion is integral to both the left portion (left side of filter 26 in Fig. 2) and the right portion (right side of filter 26 in Fig. 2) (page 14, lines 23-27; page 15, lines 1-3, note that the filter 26 is referred to singularly, and thus is taken to be an integral piece; see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
518
641
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Cowey
Regarding claim 13, Cowey in view of Marsh disclose the filter of claim 9, as discussed above.
Cowey further discloses wherein the filter (26) is removably attached to a protective device (10) (page 20, lines 25-30; Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 14, Cowey in view of Marsh disclose the filter of claim 9, as discussed above.
Cowey further discloses wherein the gap has a height greater than half of a height of each of the left portion (left side of filter 26 in Fig. 2) and the right portion (right side of filter 26 in Fig. 2) (see annotated Fig. 1 below; see also Fig. 2 where the gap height extends for the entirety of the height of the left and right portions of filter 26).
PNG
media_image4.png
626
638
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Cowey
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowey (WO 2023/099904) in view of Marsh (US 2022/0395711), as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Zhang (US 2022/0096879).
Regarding claim 15, Cowey in view of Marsh disclose the filter of claim 14, as discussed above.
Modified Cowey fails to disclose wherein the gap is rectangular.
However, Zhang teaches a protective device (100) (paragraph 28, lines 1-7; Figs. 1-2) including an analogous gap between respective filter portions (see Fig. 2, and note that filter layers 106 are of similar shape to Cowey’s filter, and have a similar gap as outlined above), wherein the gap is configured to be rectangular as a suitable shape for covering the wearer’s face (paragraph 29, lines 5-9, see “rectangular shape”, and note that forming front guard 114 to be a rectangle would create a rectangular gap).
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 front portion of Cowey’s protective device (see mask 10 at transparent panel 28) to be rectangular, as taught by Zhang, as a known shape and configuration for covering the wearer’s face with the protective device, thus resulting in a rectangular gap between filter portions.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowey (WO 2023/099904) in view of Marsh (US 2022/0395711).
Regarding claim 16, Cowey discloses a protective device (10) (page 13, lines 27-30; Fig. 1) comprising:
a frame (14) having a transparent panel (28) wherein the transparent panel is positioned centrally within the frame (14), and spans a height of the frame (14) (page 17, lines 1-7 and 13-17; Figs. 1-2; note that the frontmost outer edge of cover 14 in Fig. 5 defines the perimeter, and per Fig. 5, 28 spans that height; see annotated Fig. 5 below);
a filter (26) removably attached to the frame (14) (page 14, lines 7-10 and 23-27; page 20, lines 25-30; Figs. 1-2), the filter (26) comprising:
a left portion (left side of filter 26 in Fig. 2);
a right portion (right side of filter 26 in Fig. 2) integral to the left portion (left side of filter 26 in Fig. 2) (page 14, lines 23-27; page 15, lines 1-3, note that the filter 26 is referred to singularly, and thus is taken to be an integral piece);
a gap between the left portion (left side of filter 26 in Fig. 2) and the right portion (right side of filter 26 in Fig. 2) configured to fit around the transparent panel (28) (page 17, lines 1-17; Figs. 1-2);
a first temple arm (top left fixture point 46 in Fig. 2 and included attachment to a strap) coupled to the frame (14) (page 25, lines 19-26; Fig. 2); and
a second temple arm (top right fixture point 46 in Fig. 2 and included attachment to a strap) coupled to the frame (14) (page 25, lines 19-26; Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
516
406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Cowey
Cowey fails to disclose wherein the transparent panel has a width of at least 10 mm.
However, Marsh teaches a protective device (10) (paragraph 104, lines 1-2; Fig. 1) that includes a transparent panel (34) (paragraph 136, lines 1-7; Fig. 1), wherein a width of the transparent panel (34) is at least 10 mm (paragraph 138, see T2 dimensioned to be “at least 100 mm”; Fig. 3).
In the case where the range disclosed in the prior art overlaps the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case, the claimed range of at least 10 mm is overlapped by the prior art range of at least 100 mm. Given that each discrete range point of 100 or more millimeters satisfies the claimed range, 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 width of the transparent panel to be at least 100 mm, as taught by Marsh, in order to provide a wide enough transparent space such that the mouth of the wearer can be adequately seen.
Regarding claim 17, Cowey in view of Marsh disclose the protective device of claim 16, as discussed above.
Cowey further discloses wherein the transparent panel (28) comprises of anti-fog material (page 22, lines 3-10; page 17, lines 13-17).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowey (WO 2023/099904) in view of Marsh (US 2022/0395711), as applied to claim 16 above, in further view of Valentini (WO 2018/220516).
Regarding claim 18, Cowey in view of Marsh disclose the protective device of claim 16, as discussed above.
Modified Cowey fails to disclose wherein the first temple arm and the second temple arm each attach to the frame via a hinge.
However, Valentini teaches a protective device (20) wherein a first temple arm (35) and a second temple arm (36) each attach to a frame (21) via a hinge (37) in order to provide the protective device (20) with both a use and a non-use configuration relative to the temple arms (35, 36), and to facilitate the correct arrangement of the first and second temple arms (35, 36) on the user’s head (page 8, lines 10-16; page 9, line 24-page 10, line 6; Figs. 1-3).
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 substituted the first and second temple arms of Cowey with the hinged temple arms taught by Valentini in order to provide the protective device with both a use and a non-use configuration relative to the temple arms, and to facilitate the correct arrangement of the first and second temple arms on the user’s head.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowey (WO 2023/099904) in view of Marsh (US 2022/0395711), as applied to claim 16 above, in further view of Duval (US 2021/0370108).
Regarding claim 19, Cowey in view of Marsh disclose the protective device of claim 16, as discussed above.
Modified Cowey fails to disclose a valve positioned in the transparent panel.
However, Duval teaches a protective device (1) that includes a valve (38) positioned in a transparent panel (5) at the center of the device (1) in order to guide exhaled air out of the protective device (1) and prevent air from flowing into the protective device (1) (paragraph 118, lines 1-8; paragraph 122, lines 1-9; see final 7 lines of paragraph 43, where the filter assembly is said to be transparent; Fig. 1).
Given that Cowey contemplates additional openings in the protective device for breathability (page 14, lines 13-15), it would have been obvious to have modified the protective device of modified Cowey to further include an additional opening with a valve positioned in the transparent panel, as taught by Duval, in order to provide an additional structure for guiding exhaled air out of the protective device and preventing air from flowing into the protective device, and thus improving breathability of the protective device.
Regarding claim 20, Cowey in view of Marsh and Duval disclose the protective device of claim 19, as discussed above.
Modified Cowey further discloses wherein the valve (Duval: 38) is configured to allow air to flow out of the valve (Duval: 38) in a direction away from a wearer of the protection device (Cowey: 10; see analogous protective device 1 of Duval) and to prevent air from flowing in through the valve (Duval: 38) in a direction towards a wearer of the protection device (Cowey: 10; see analogous protective device 1 of Duval) (Duvall: paragraph 122, lines 1-9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brick (US 12,402,673) is cited for its transparent mask with wrapping filter portion as seen in Figure 1.
Estkowski (US 2025/0170432) is cited for its transparent front panel with two separate filters on left and right sides thereof as best seen in Figure 2.
Sylliaasen (US 2023/0226383) is cited for the shape of its filter (7608) shown in Figure 77.
Atkinson (GB 2605590) is cited for its transparent panel (104) on a mask as shown in Figure 1.
Reyes (US 2022/0296934) is cited for its partially transparent mask as shown in Figure 34.
Choi (KR 2022/0103262) is cited for its transparent panel on a mask with flanking filters as seen in Figure 1.
Taylor (WO 2022/118047) is cited for its transparent mask assembly with variously shaped filters as seen in Figures 31A-B.
Tsao (US 2022/0118293) is cited for its transparent mask with filters flanking the sides as shown in Figure 1.
Connor (US 2022/0096874) is cited for its various transparent masks with filters arranged around the central transparent portion as seen in Figures 1-12.
Lamoncha (US 2021/0401084) is cited for its transparent window (80) as seen in Figures 14-15.
Rein (US 2021/0393140) is cited for its transparent face shield as shown in Figure 1.
Rosenberg (US 10,945,469) is cited for its transparent panel as shown in Figure 1, and its wrapped filter assembly as shown in Figure 3.
Li (CN 111657585) is cited for its transparent mask with side filters as seen in Figure 1.
Parham (US 2017/0007861) is cited for its transparent shield (142) in Figures 7/18 and discussed at paragraph 69.
Hahne (US 2008/0092909) is cited for its transparent panel with wrapping fiber material as shown in Figures 1-2.
Fisichella (US 4,323,063) is cited for its transparent mask portion in Figure 3.
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
Prosecution Insights