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 .
Drawings
Photographs are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention (see CFR 1.84(b)(1)). In the present case photographs are not required to show the mask of Figs. 2A-5. Line drawing should instead be submitted for those figures (see MPEP 608.02(VII)).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Ln. 8 recites “the meltblown PLA layer” which should read either “one of the intermediate layer(s)” or “the meltblown PLA textile” for consistency with the earlier recitation
Claim 1, Ln. 9-10 recites “the assembly” which should read “the mask assembly” for consistency
Claim 1, Ln. 15 recites “the PLA nosebar”
Claim 1 needs some form of punctation at the end of Ln. 20. But first note the below 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection in relation to that portion of the claim which may resolve this issue.
Claim 1, Ln. 25 recites “the pair soft-resilient ear loop strips” which should read “the pair of ear loop strips” for consistency with the earlier recitation
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 3 recites “the deformable nosebar is an aluminum strip.” Claim 1 has already recited the “PLA nosebar.” The application as filed only indicates the use of an aluminum strip for the nosebar as an alternative to PLA and not in combination with PLA (e.g. ¶0056 of the PGPub copy of the instant application). The instant claim thus appears to be improperly attempting to combine embodiments not disclosed as suitable together. There is thus lack of sufficient written description support in the application as originally filed for the claiming of the nosebar being both PLA (in claim 1) and also an aluminum strip (in claim 3).
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) 1-3 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the top linear edge” in Ln. 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears the limitation may be referring to the earlier “upper linear edge.” For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “the upper linear edge.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the PLA nosebar” in Ln. 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears the limitation is referring to the earlier “deformable nosebar” and now specifying the nosebar as made of PLA. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as reading “the deformable nosebar formed of PLA.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a pair of wherein” in Ln. 20 which deems the claim indefinite. Additionally, the limitation “the pair of the ear loop strips” in Ln. 20 lacks antecedent basis. The first limitation appears to be missing words, specifically introduction of ear loop strips to provide antecedent basis for the second limitation. For the purposes of examination the limitations together will be interpreted as reading “a pair of ear loop strips, wherein the pair of ear loop strips”.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the first layer …, the second layer …, and the third layer” in Ln. 21-22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim. Further, the limitations are indefinite because they don’t clearly link the three layers with the structures earlier recited. One of ordinary skill in the art would thus be left to question what structure the three layers are defining. The three layers appear to be defining the soft-resilient textile of Ln. 20. In this regard it is suggested to replace the word “wherein” at the beginning of Ln. 21 with the word “comprising”. For the purposes of examination the limitations together will be interpreted as reading “comprising a first layer …, a second layer …, and a third layer”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-2 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. Claim 3 is additionally rejected based upon the above 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art fails to teach or suggest a disposable, compostable pleated surgical/medical mask including all elements, including their particular materials and orientations, recited by the instant claim. The claim recites a mask assembly including three particular layers and a nosebar. Of note, all three layers are recited using the language “consisting of” and thus must be exclusively formed of the respective material recited for each layer (see MPEP 2111.03(II)). The claim further cites a particular aligning of the three layers and the nosebar, a securing of the layers via welding, and specifies the nosebar are formed of PLA. Additionally, the claim recites a pair of ear loop strips which are each formed of a particular three layer arrangement which is laminated by a heat-embossing process.
Closest prior art to the instant claim includes Shang et al. (CN 112493581 A), Wang et al. (CN 112956764 A) and Shan et al. (CN 113068882 A) (the following citations are from the attached machine translations).
Shang teaches a biodegradable mask a surface layer 4, an inner layer 5, a melt-blown cloth filter layer 6 and a nose bridge strip 3 all formed of polylactic acid (Pg. 3-4; Figs. 1-2). Shang also teaches ear belts 2 is formed by weaving polylactic acid fibre DTY filament and polyolefin elastic fibre (Pg. 3). However, the weaving of ear belts 2 is not equivalent to the recited three layer form of the recited ear loop strips. Also, polyolefin would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as a non-compostable material while the claim specifically recites the second layer of the ear loop strips as formed of a compostable elastic film. Additionally, the nose bridge strip 3 of Shang is located between surface layer 4 and inner layer 5 (Fig. 2) instead of the recited location of the nosebar as “between the meltblown PLA textile and one of the first outer layer and the second outer layer.” One of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to have moved the nose bridge strip 3 of Shang into the location required by the instant claim or to have changed ear belts 2 to have the required three layers without improper hindsight reasoning.
Wang teaches a biodegradable mask including an er band with an inner core of biological degradable polyester elastomer and an outer layer of polylactic acid nonwoven fabric (Pg. 6 – “Embodiment 1”). While Wang may suggest the particular ear loop strip structure recited by the instant claim Wang fails to teach or suggest the particular elements and arrangement of the recited mask assembly.
Shan teaches a degradable mask formed of polylactic acid (Pg. 6-7 – Embodiments 1-3). Shan teaches means of forming an ear belt which involve mixing polylactic acid with another polymer (Pg. 6-7 – Embodiments 1-3). Shan thus fails to teach the claimed three layer arrangement of the recited ear loop strips. Additionally, Shan does not teach its nose clip part as located in the particular location required by the instant claim of the nosebar.
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 with its particular materials, layers and orientations by way of improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, see PTO-892 for additional attached references.
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
Prosecution Insights