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
Black and white. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of: electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immunological, western, Southern, and northern), autoradiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent.
Specification
The amendment filed February 16, 2024, is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The incorporation by reference of the international patent application No. PCT/IN2022/050483, having an International Filing date of 23 May 2022, which claims the benefit of IN Provisional Application No. 202111037989, filed on 19 August 2021, is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case May 23, 2022, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore the specification amendment of 02/16/2024 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p). Applicant is advised to remove the phrase “the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference” from the specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7, and 10-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, line 4 and 10, "the face mask " should read as "the quadra lamina face mask”.
Regarding Claim 1, line 7, "an " should be added before "outer layer”. Also, uncapitalized “outer”.
Regarding Claim 1, line 11, "a " should be added before "second layer”. Also, uncapitalized “second”.
Regarding Claim 1, line 15, "a " should be added before "third layer”. Also, uncapitalized “third”.
Regarding Claim 1, line 14, “the PET” should read as “the microporous hydrophobic PET second layer” for consistency.
Regarding Claim 1, line 17, "an " should be added before "inner layer”. Also, uncapitalized “inner”.
Regarding Claim 1, lines 17-18, the claims could positively recites “the face” and “the wearer”. It is suggested that the language be amended to read --…an inner layer, wherein the inner layer is configured to be in contact with a face of a wearer and is made of a tightly woven cotton textile layer configured to provide the wearer comfort and enable prolonged usage,..—to overcome the objection.
Regarding Claim 1, line 19, "said four layers" should read as " the outer, the microporous hydrophobic PET second, the hydrophobic polypropylene nonwoven third layer, and the inner layer” for consistency.
Regarding Claim 1, lines 7, 11, 15, 17, and 19, Remove all “[]” and anything inside of them, for example: “a) Outer layer [1], wherein” should read as “a) an outer layer, wherein”.
Regarding Claim 2-10, line 1, “The face mask as claimed” should read as “The quadra lamina face mask as claimed”.
Regarding Claim 2, 3, 4, 5, and 11, Remove all “[]” and anything inside of them.
Regarding Claim 3, “the” should read as “microporous hydrophobic PET second layer”. Also, “is configured for” should be added before preventing inhalation.
Regarding Claim 4, line 1, "porous polypropylene non-woven third layer" should read as "the hydrophobic polypropylene nonwoven third layer" for consistency.
Regarding Claim 4, line 2, “the PET” should read as “the microporous hydrophobic PET second layer” for consistency.
Regarding Claim 4, line 3, “by other layers” should read as “the outer layer and/or the microporous hydrophobic PET second layer” for consistency.
Regarding Claim 5, lines 1-2, "wherein hydrophobic polypropylene nonwoven layer" should read as "the hydrophobic polypropylene nonwoven third layer" for consistency.
Regarding Claim 5, line 2, “to the PET layer” should read as “the microporous hydrophobic PET second layer” for consistency.
Regarding Claim 5, line 2, “next to the PET layer [2] which restricts further entry of the pollutants that pass through one and two layers” should read as “next to the microporous hydrophobic PET second layer; wherein the hydrophobic polypropylene nonwoven third layer restricts further entry of pollutants that passed through the outer layer and the microporous hydrophobic PET second layer” for consistency.
Regarding Claim 6, line 1, "the individual layers of the mask are measured" should read as "the outer, the microporous hydrophobic PET second, the hydrophobic polypropylene nonwoven third layer, and the inner layer are measured” for consistency.
Regarding Claim 6, line 2, “and” should be added before “are trimmed accordingly”.
Regarding Claim 7, line 1, "the mask " should read as "the quadra lamina face mask”.
Regarding Claim 10, line 1, "wherein multilayered mask" should read as "the quadra lamina face mask”.
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.
Claims 8-9 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 8 is rejected because the specification, as originally filed, does not reasonably convey to one or the ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possession of the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the claim recites bacterial filtration efficiency percentages against certain bacteria and efficiency determined using different test methods (ATCC 6538, ASTM F2299, ASTM F2101); but, the specification does not provide written description support for the recited tests methods, percentages, nor describe how these parameters are determined.
Also, Claim 9 is similarly rejected because the specification, as originally filed, does not reasonably convey to one or the ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possession of the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the claim recites breathability and flammability of the mask using different test methods (Differential pressure-EN 14683, 16CFR Part-1610); but, the specification does not provide written description support for the recited tests methods nor describe how these parameters are determined.
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 1-11 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.
Regarding Claim 1, line 8, and Claim 11 the claim recites that the claimed feature “cotton textile layer with a 100 x 100 count specification.” This limitation is indefinite because the applicant has not clarified what the unit or measurement the 100 x 100 count is referring to; for example, 100 threads per inch, mm, cm, 100 wrap per 100 weft, yarn count, etc. it is not clarified. For the purpose of the OA, Examiner is interpreting that the layer is made from woven cotton material that is 100 threads counts.
Regarding Claim 1, lines 10-11, the claim recites that the claimed feature “improves the appearance of the face mask.” The phrase “improves the appearance” is a subjective term of degree because it depends on a person’s personal opinion/judgement. The claim does not provide any objective standard, baseline, or criteria by which one of the ordinary skill in the art could determine that appearance has been improved. See MPEP 217.02 and 2173.05 (b).
Regarding Claim 2, the phrase "especially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of the Office Action, examiner is interpreting the language after "especially" as not part of the limitations of the claim. If applicant is intending for the limitations to be part of the claim examiner suggests to remove the language "especially".
Regarding Claim 2, lines 2-3 the claim recites that the claimed feature “gives a soft finish and proper structure”. The phrase “soft finish” is a subjective term because it does not have a reasonable meaning. The claims fails to specify what degree of softness, surface characteristics, material properties, or other measurable parameters are required for a finish to be considered “soft”. Nor does the claim provide any objective skill in the art that could determine whether a given structure possesses “soft finish” or a “proper structure”. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not reasonably certain, rendering the claim indefinite. See MPEP 217.02 and 2173.05 (b).
Regarding Claim 3, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of the Office Action, examiner is interpreting the language after "such as" as not part of the limitations of the claim. If applicant intends for the limitations to be part of the claim examiner suggests to remove the language "such as".
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites the limitation “the pollutants or the contaminants” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggest removing the “the” before pollutants as that is the first time pollutants have been introduced.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “the pollutants” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regrading Claim 7, lines 2-3 the claim recites that the claimed feature “not restricting any facial movements, along with no difficulty in speaking and breathing and can be reused for 3 months or up to 30 washes”. The phrase “not restricting any facial movements, along with no difficulty in speaking and breathing” is a subjective because it depends on the individuals physiology, perception, and circumstances. The claim does not provide an objective standard or measurable criteria by which one in the ordinary skill of the art could determine whether the claims device satisfies these limitations. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not reasonably certain, rendering the claim indefinite. See MPEP 217.02 and 2173.05 (b).
Regrading Claim 8, the claims is indefinite because, when read in light of the specification, the applicant has fails to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarding the invention. The claims recite efficiency value and/or efficiency determined by reference to unspecified test methods. However, the specification does not identify what the test methods are, does not describe the procedures, conditions, acceptance criteria, or any objective standard for determining which method applies or how the recited efficiency is to be measured. Because the test methods are not written into the specification and are not otherwise defined, the scope of the claims depend on undefined and subjective measurements that can not be ascertained with reasonable certainty. the examiner cannot determine what these test methods mean and one in the ordinary skill in the art would likewise be unable to determine how to apply them.
Regrading Claim 9, the claims is indefinite because, when read in light of the specification, the applicant has fails to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarding the invention. The claims recite breathability and flammability of the developed mask determined by reference to unspecified test methods. However, the specification does not identify what the test methods are, does not describe the procedures, conditions, acceptance criteria, or any objective standard for determining which method applies or how the recited efficiency is to be measured. Because the test methods are not written into the specification and are not otherwise defined, the scope of the claims depend on undefined and subjective measurements that can not be ascertained with reasonable certainty. The examiner cannot determine what these test methods mean and one in the ordinary skill in the art would likewise be unable to determine how to apply them.
Regarding Claim 11, line 3, the claim recites that the claimed feature “improves the appearance of the face mask.” The phrase “improves the appearance” is a subjective term of degree because it depends on a person’s personal opinion/judgement. The claim does not provide any objective standard, baseline, or criteria by which one of the ordinary skill in the art could determine that appearance has been improved. See MPEP 217.02 and 2173.05 (b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 20190231004 A1), hereafter as Sato, in view of Lean (US 20210353979 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sato discloses a quadra lamina face mask (para. 0006-0010, 0019-0023, 0038-0054) comprising a reused microporous hydrophobic warp knit PET [polyethylene terephthalate] permeate spacer extracted from waste spiral wound RO/UF membrane modules, which offers abatement in plastic pollution through the reuse of PET spacer component of waste spiral membrane modules (Examiner notes: The limitation of " a reused microporous hydrophobic warp knit PET [polyethylene terephthalate] permeate spacer extracted from waste spiral wound RO/UF membrane modules, which offers abatement in plastic pollution through the reuse of PET spacer component of waste spiral membrane modules" is considered an inherent characteristic of the materials in the mask ).
wherein the face mask comprises of the following layers from the outside in:
a) Outer layer [1] (para. 0019-0023), wherein the outer layer is comprised of a tightly woven cotton (para. 0022) textile layer with that acts as a per-filter that prevents the entry of particulate matter of sizes ≥ 5-10 µm and also improves the appearance of the face mask; (The limitation of "acts as a per-filter that prevents the entry of particulate matter of sizes ≥ 5-10 µm " is considered an inherent characteristic of the layer of woven cotton textile layer of 100x100 count specification; for the limitation of “improves the appearance of the face mask” see 112(b) above).
b) Second layer [2], wherein the second layer is consisting of a microporous hydrophobic polyethylene terephthalate (PET) membrane spacer fabric (para. 0040-0041: Examiner notes: Sato teaches polyethylene terephthalate as one of the options of the mask) extracted from used spiral wound reverse osmosis or ultrafiltration membrane modules (Examiner notes: even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP § 2113-I) to repel the respiratory droplets coming in contact with the mask through electrostatic repulsion and high contact angle (The limitation of " to repel the respiratory droplets coming in contact with the mask through electrostatic repulsion and high contact angle" is considered an inherent characteristic of the layer of microporous hydrophobic polyethylene terephthalate (PET) membrane spacer);
c) Third layer [3], wherein the third layer comprises of a hydrophobic polypropylene (PP) nonwoven layer (para. 0043-0047) is positioned subsequent to the PET layer from the front-end side (para. 0019); and
d) Inner layer [4], wherein the inner layer (para. 0048-0054: Examiner notes: Sato teaches that first and 4th layer can be the same material and that that material is cotton) is in contact with the face and is made of a tightly woven cotton textile layer to provide the wearer comfort and enable prolonged usage (Examiner notes: the recitation of the mask being comfortable and for prolonged uses is an intended functionality and is given limited patentable weight (MPEP 2111.02)), and said four layers are stitched tightly (para. 0019; Examiner notes: the can be integrated by sewing) to offer tight porosity of ≤ 0.3 µm and water repulsion (The limitation of " offer tight porosity of ≤0.3 µm and water repulsion" is considered an inherent characteristic of the materials of the layers together).
Sato does not specifically disclose that the textile layer is a 100 X 100 count specification.
However, Lean teaches the woven fabric that has certain weave thread count (para. 0086) is important parameter that influences the performance of the fabric.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cotton in Sato to include the certain weave thread count as taught by Lean for the purpose of being able to repels, or absorbs up to 99.97% of such microorganisms, bacteria or viruses (para. 0086). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date the invention to modify Sato to include 100 x 100 thread count because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 2, Modified Sato discloses the face mask as claimed in claim 1, wherein the woven cotton textile outer layer [1] (para. 0019-0023) prevents inhalation of airborne contaminants (The limitation of “prevents inhalation of airborne contaminants" is considered an inherent characteristic of the outer cotton later), notes: for the limitation of “gives a soft finish and proper structure to the mask providing comfort to the users” see 112(b) above; Examiner is interpreting that these are inherited characteristics of the specific material).
Regarding Claim 3, Modified Sato discloses the face mask as claimed in claim 1, wherein microporous hydrophobic PET second layer [2] (para. 0040-0041: Examiner notes: Sato teaches polyethylene terephthalate as one of the options of the mask) as the permeate spacer extracted from used spiral wound reverse osmosis or ultrafiltration membrane modules prepared by warp knitting for preventing inhalation of airborne contaminants
Regarding Claim 4, Modified Sato discloses the face mask as claimed in claim 1, wherein porous polypropylene non-woven third layer [3] (para. 0043-0047) adjacent to the PET layer (para. 0040-0041) which acts as a filter to restrict the pollutants or the contaminants which are not captured by other layers.
Regarding Claim 5, Modified Sato discloses the face mask as claimed in claim 1, wherein hydrophobic polypropylene (PP) nonwoven layer [3] (para. 0043-0047) is positioned next to the PET layer [2] ((para. 0040-004) which restricts further entry of the pollutants that pass through one and two layers (para. 0045).
Regarding Claim 7, Modified Sato discloses the face mask as claimed in claim 1, wherein the mask is designed with an exclusive 3D pattern (para. 0032) that has effective face coverage not restricting any facial movements, along with no difficulty in speaking and breathing (Examiner notes: The limitation of “not restricting any facial movements, along with no difficulty in speaking and breathing " is considered an inherent characteristic of the mask layers all together) and can be reused for 3 months or up to 30 washes (Examiner notes: the recitation of the mask can be reused for 3 months or up to 30 washes is an intended functionality and is given limited patentable weight (MPEP 2111.02).
Regarding Claim 10, Modified Sato discloses the face mask as claimed in claim 1, wherein multilayered mask (para. 0019-0054; Sato) (Examiner notes: The limitation of a high air permeability 2.2 times greater than the expensive standard N-95 masks available across the counter with only 37% of the water permeability obtained through N-95 masks, at a pressure differential of 0.5 bar ensuring greater breathability with better protection against respiratory droplets that could carry pathogens is considered an inherent characteristic of the material of the layers together.).
Regarding Claim 11, Sato discloses a process for preparation of quadra lamina face mask (para. 0019: Examiner notes: through sewing), comprising:
a) preparing an outer layer [1] (para. 0019-0023) using a tightly woven cotton textile (para. 0022) layer that acts as a per-filter that prevents the entry of particulate matter of sizes ≥ 5-10 µm and also improves appearance of the face mask (The limitation of "acts as a per-filter that prevents the entry of particulate matter of sizes ≥ 5-10 µm " is considered an inherent characteristic of the layer of woven cotton textile layer of 100x100 count specification; for the limitation of “improves the appearance of the face mask” see 112(b) above).;
b) preparing a second layer [2] using a microporous hydrophobic polyethylene terephthalate (PET) membrane spacer fabric (para. 0040-0041: Examiner notes: Sato teaches polyethylene terephthalate as one of the options of the mask), extracted from used spiral wound reverse osmosis or ultrafiltration membrane modules (Examiner notes: even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), to repel respiratory droplets coming in contact with the face mask through electrostatic repulsion and high contact angle(The limitation of " to repel the respiratory droplets coming in contact with the mask through electrostatic repulsion and high contact angle" is considered an inherent characteristic of the layer of microporous hydrophobic polyethylene terephthalate (PET) membrane spacer) ;
c) preparing a third layer [3] using a hydrophobic polypropylene (PP) nonwoven layer(para. 0043-0047), positioned subsequent to the PET layer from the front-end side (para. 0019);
d) preparing an inner layer [4] having direct contact with the face using a tightly woven cotton textile layer (para. 0048-0054: Examiner notes: Sato teaches that first and 4th layer can be the same material and that that material is cotton) to provide the wearer comfort and enable prolonged usage(Examiner notes: the recitation of the mask being comfortable and for prolonged uses is an intended functionality and is given limited patentable weight (MPEP 2111.02));
e) stitching tightly all the layers with each-other to offer tight porosity of ≤ 0.3 µm and water repulsion (The limitation of " offer tight porosity of ≤ 0.3 µm and water repulsion" is considered an inherent characteristic of the materials of the layers together).
Sato does not specifically disclose that the textile layer is a 100 X 100 count specification.
However, Lean teaches the woven fabric that has certain weave thread count (para. 0086) is important parameter that influences the performance of the fabric.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cotton in Sato to include the certain weave thread count as taught by Lean for the purpose of being able to repels, or absorbs up to 99.97% of such microorganisms, bacteria or viruses (para. 0086). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date the invention to modify Sato to include 100 x 100 thread count because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato and Lean, as applied to claim 1, in view of McKelly et al. (US 20220104563 A1), hereafter as McKelly.
Regarding Claim 6, Modified Sato discloses the face mask as claimed in claim 1,
Modified Sato does not disclose specifically wherein the dimensions of the individual layers of the mask are measured as 9.5" x 6.5", and 6.65" x4.55" are trimmed accordingly for universal size and junior size, respectively.
However, Mckelly teaches the size of an adult facemask may be 7.2″ W×5.2″ H, wherein the width refers to the span across the face of the wearer (e.g., ear to ear) and the height refers to the vertical span of the wearer's face (e.g., from the bridge of the nose to just beneath the chin) or the size of an adult facemask may be 7.5″ W×5.3″ H. The facemask system may also be manufactured in sizes that are more suitable for infants, children and younger adults.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mask dimensions of Modified Sato wherein the dimensions of the individual layers of the mask are measured as 9.5" x 6.5", and 6.65" x4.55" are trimmed accordingly for universal size and junior size, respectively. Applicant has not disclosed that dimensions provides criticality of this range as evidenced by the Applicant' s specification. Since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Modified Sato and Applicant's mask to perform equally well because these dimensions does not change the function of the mask.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the device taught by Modified Sato in view of Mckelly to incorporate the overall dimension range as specified in claim 6, because such a modification is considered to be well within the skill level of the ordinary artisan in order to achieve the desired device size for the purpose comfort of the user and these masks may also be manufactured in sizes that are more suitable for infants, children and younger adults (para. 0046).
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner notes that no art rejection has been made for claims 8-9 at this time as the prior art of record fails to disclose the claims as written. The Examiner retains the right to make a new art-based rejection on these claims once the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections have been resolved by the Applicant.
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. Other prior art of particular note include:
Ciesielski et al. (US 20220081490 A1), teaches cotton as a filter substrate and uses cotton as filter media. Also, it shows threads per inch is commonly known in the art.
Choi et al. (US 20180207586 A1) teaches a reverse osmosis filter module including an improved feed spacer that may be made of any one of polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride, polyester, and polypropylene.
Ramanathan et al. (US 20210339063 A1) teaches surgical face masks are made in different sizes like 17.5×9.5 cm for adult, 14.5×9.5 cm for child use and 12×7 cm for infants. Polypropylene, polycarbonate, polyethylene, polyester etc. are suitable for manufacturing surgical face masks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAAP A ELLABIB whose telephone number is (571)272-5879. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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.
MAAP A. ELLABIB
Examiner
Art Unit 3785
/M.A.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights