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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments made to claims 1, 7, 9, 13-17, 19, 23, 26, and 29 and the cancellation of claims 3, 6, 12, and 24 in the response filed 1/23/26 are acknowledged.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 13-23, and 25-30 are now pending in the application and are examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments on p. 1-2 regarding Hahne failing to disclose or teach newly amended claim 23 requiring the used indicator mechanism function by emitting an odor is moot in view of Qu, which has been provided instead to disclose these limitations. Applicant argues on p. 2 that O’Brien has integrated modules in sockets to detect airborne substances, and that the new amendment to integrate the infectious disease mechanism into the body of the face mask overcomes O’Brien. However, the module 432 of O’Brien is part of and integrated into the body 402 when the mask is assembled, as in figs. 18 and 19. Applicant’s arguments on p. 3-4 regarding the amendments made to claim 1 which now require the used indicator mechanism to emit and odor are moot in view of reference Qu which has been provided to teach these new limitations. Applicant’s arguments on p. 4-7 regarding the references used in the dependent claims failing to make up for the deficiencies of O’Brien and Hahne in the independent claim 1 are moot, as the rejection of claim 1 has been maintained due to the addition of reference Qu.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“an infectious” in claim 26, line 6 should be amended to recite –the infectious—
Appropriate correction is required.
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 26-30 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 26, the claim recites “the infectious disease mechanism” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 27-30, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by virtue of their dependence on claim 26.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one securing mechanism” in claim 1, “a disease environmental presence indicator” in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qu et al. US 2018/0368492 A1.
Regarding claim 23, Qu discloses a method of indicating whether a face mask 100 is used (fig. 1 and [0006], method of determining an end of service life of a face mask), including the steps of: a user actuating a used indicator mechanism 122 on the face mask 100 (fig. 2 and [0032]-[0033], fragrance material 122 is on the interior of the mask and is released through controlled diffusion for a period of time; [0038], the fragrance is released only while the mask is used; thus, the user wearing/using the mask can be considered actuation of the fragrance release); wearing the face mask 100 (fig. 1 and [0038], the fragrance is released when the mask is used); and the used indicator mechanism 122 indicating that the face mask 100 is used by the used indicator mechanism 122 emitting an odor after a time period of 1 to 24 hours after use of the face mask 100 ([0029] further states that, for example, an amount of the fragrance composition can be selected to correspond to an eight hour shift and service life of a mask; therefore, the odor is being released for 8 hours, which falls within the 1 to 24 hour range).
Regarding claim 25, Qu discloses said actuating step being further defined as a step chosen from the group consisting of the user putting on the face mask 100 ([0038], the fragrance is released only while the mask is used; thus, the user wearing/using the mask can be considered actuation of the fragrance release), the user coughing into the face mask, clicking an actuator on the face mask, opening packaging containing the face mask, and peeling off a layer protecting the used indicator mechanism.
Claim(s) 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Brien et al. US 2021/0086005 A1.
Regarding claim 26, O’Brien discloses a method of indicating whether a user has an infectious disease (figs. 18 and 19 and [0106], module 432 within lower socket 420 has a middle layer 442 that changes color if the wearer has a communicable disease such as COVID), including the steps of: the user actuating the infectious disease mechanism 442 on a face mask 400 ([0106], middle layer 442 includes material that changes color if and when exposed to a communicable disease; therefore, the actuation of the color-changing mechanism occurs when the user wears the mask, as breathing into the mask will trigger the color change if the user is afflicted), wherein the infectious disease mechanism 442 is integrated into a body 402 of the face mask 400 (figs. 18 and 19 and [0106], module 432 within lower socket 420 has a middle layer 442 that changes color if the wearer has a communicable disease such as COVID, and the module 432 is part of the body 402); wearing the face mask ([0106], middle layer 442 includes material that changes color if and when exposed to a communicable disease; therefore, the actuation of the color-changing mechanism occurs when the user wears the mask, as breathing into the mask will trigger the color change); and the infectious disease mechanism 442 indicating that the user has an infectious disease by the body 402 changing from a first color to a second color ([0106], middle layer 442 of module 432 of body 402 includes material that changes color if and when exposed to a communicable disease).
Regarding claim 27, O’Brien discloses said actuating step being further defined as a step chosen from the group consisting of the user putting on the face mask ([0106], middle layer 442 includes material that changes color if and when exposed to a communicable disease; therefore, the actuation of the color-changing mechanism occurs when the user wears the mask, as breathing into the mask will trigger the color change), the user coughing into the face mask, clicking an actuator on the face mask, opening packaging containing the face mask, and peeling off a layer protecting the infectious disease mechanism.
Regarding claim 28, O’Brien discloses the infectious disease is chosen from the group consisting of influenza, measles, COVID-19 ([0106], if the wearer has COVID, the middle layer 442 changes color), AIDS, amebiasis, anaplasmosis, anthrax, antibiotic resistance, avian influenza, babesiosis, botulism, brucellosis, campylobacter, cat scratch disease, chickenpox, chikungunya, chlamydia trachomatis, cholera, clostridium perfringens, conjunctivitis, crusted scabies, cryptosporidiosis, cyclospora, dengue fever, diphtheria, Ebola virus disease, E. coli, eastern equine encephalitis (EEE), enterovirus 68?, fifth disease, genital herpes, genital warts, giardia, gonorrhea, group A Streptococcus, Guillain-Barr syndrome, Hand, Foot & Mouth Disease, Hansen's disease, hantavirus, lice, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, herpes, herpes B virus, Hib disease, histoplasmosis, HIV, HPV (Human Papillomavirus), impetigo, Kawasaki syndrome, legionellosis, leprosy, leptospirosis, listeriosis, lyme disease, lymphocytic choriomeningitis (LCMV), malaria, Marburg virus, meningitis, meningococcal disease, MERS (Middle East Respiratory Illness), monkeypox, mononucleosis, MRSA, mumps, mycoplasma pneumoniae, neisseria meningitis, norovirus, Orf Virus (Sore Mouth), pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), PEP, pertussis, pink eye, plague, pneumococcal disease, powassan virus, psittacosis, Q fever, rabies, raccoon roundworm, rat bite fever, Reye’s Syndrome, Rickettsialpox, ringworm, rubella, salmonella, scabies, scarlet fever, shigella, shingles, smallpox, strep throat, syphilis, tetanus, toxoplasmosis, trichinosis, trichomoniasis, tuberculosis, tularemia, varicella, vibriosis, viral hemorrhagic fevers (VHF), West Nile virus, whooping cough, yellow fever, yersiniosis, and zika virus.
Regarding claim 29, O’Brien discloses indicating that there is disease in an environment ([0106], persons within the vicinity of the wearer will be alerted to the fact that the wearer is the carrier of the disease; the wearer is considered to be in the environment of the “persons”).
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien et al. US 2021/0086005 A1 in view of Qu et al. US 2018/0368492 A1.
Regarding claim 1, O’Brien discloses a face mask 400 (fig. 18 and [0102], face mask 400) comprising: a body 402 and at least one securing mechanism 404 operatively attached to said body 402 (fig. 18 and [0102], two lateral elastic bands 404 are attached to each side of panel 402), and an infectious disease detection mechanism 442 for indicating if a user wearing said face mask 400 has an infectious disease operatively integrated into said body 402 and wherein said body 402 is configured to change from a first color indicating no disease to a second color indicating presence of disease with a color change mechanism (figs. 18 and 19 and [0106], module 432 within lower socket 420 has a middle layer 442 that changes color and is visible from the outside if the wearer has a communicable disease such as COVID; thus, the changing color of the module portion 432 of the body 402 is indicative of no disease vs. disease).
O’Brien is silent on a used indicator mechanism for indicating that said face mask is used and configured to emit an odor after a time period of 1 to 24 hours after use of said face mask.
However, Qu teaches a mask 100 (fig. 1 and [0031], mask 100) comprising a used indicator mechanism 122 for indicating that said face mask 100 is used and configured to emit an odor after a time period of 1 to 24 hours after use of said face mask 100 ([0032], fragrance material 122; [0029], a selected amount of fragrance is released when the mask is in use, such that the availability of the fragrance can be used as an end of service life indicator for the mask; the amount of fragrance can be selected so that when the fragrance released by the fragrance material drops below an olfactory detection threshold, the loss of scent indicates that the service life of the mask is over; therefore, the fragrance can be considered a used indicator mechanism, since the user would be able to tell how long the mask has been in use depending on the strength or weakness of the odor; [0029] further states that, for example, an amount of the fragrance composition can be selected to correspond to an eight hour shift and service life of a mask; therefore, the odor is being released for 8 hours, which falls within the 1 to 24 hour range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided said mask of O’Brien with a used indicator mechanism for indicating that said face mask is used and configured to emit an odor after a time period of 1 to 24 hours after use of said face mask, as taught by Qu, to enable the user to be aware that the mask needs to be replaced in a discreet manner.
Regarding claim 2, O’Brien in view of Qu discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Qu further teaches an analogous body 102 being made of a material chosen from the group consisting of cloth (fig. 1 and [0031], the mask 100 is made of non-woven fabric 102), cotton, nylon, and filter material, to be comfortable to wear on the skin.
Regarding claim 4, O’Brien in view of Qu discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
O’Brien further discloses said body 402 further including a pocket 418 for filters 428 (fig. 18 and [0105], socket 418 comprises module 428 which is a filter, and the filter is attached to the socket 418 via a magnetic band; therefore, other filters would be capable of being used in the socket via the magnet; please note the claim recites a pocket for filters, meaning that the plural filters are not actively claimed).
Regarding claim 5, O’Brien in view of Qu discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
O’Brien further discloses said securing mechanism 404 being chosen from the group consisting of elastic ear loops (fig. 18 and [0102], elastic bands 404), ties, and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 9, O’Brien in view of Qu discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Qu further teaches said used indicator mechanism 122 being configured to activate by a method chosen from the group consisting of passive activation and active activation ([0029], a selected amount of fragrance is released when the mask is in use, such that the availability of the fragrance can be used as an end of service life indicator for the mask; thus, since the fragrance simply releases/emits on its own, the activation can be considered passive), to provide an easy to use indicator for the user.
Regarding claim 10, O’Brien in view of Qu discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Qu further teaches said used indicator mechanism 122 being integrated into an entirety of said body 102 or a portion of said body 102 (fig. 2 and [0032], the fragrance 122 is within container 120 on the interior of the mask 100 and is thus integrated into a portion of said body 102), so as to be discreet during use.
Regarding claim 14, O’Brien in view of Qu discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
O’Brien further discloses said infectious disease detection mechanism 442 is configured to be activated by a method chosen from the group consisting of passive activation ([0106], the middle layer 442 comprises material that changes color when simply exposed to disease, making it passive, as it does not require the user to activate it) and active activation.
Regarding claim 15, O’Brien in view of Qu discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
O’Brien further discloses said infectious disease detection mechanism 442 being integrated into an entirety of said body 402 or a portion of said body 402 ([0106], color-changing middle layer 442 is integrated into a portion of said body 402 within module 432).
Regarding claim 16, O’Brien in view of Qu discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
O’Brien further discloses said infectious disease detection mechanism 442 is configured to indicate said user’s disease status in real time ([0106], since middle layer 442 changes color upon exposure to disease, it is indicating the user’s disease status in real time).
Regarding claim 17, O’Brien in view of Qu discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
O’Brien further discloses said infectious disease detection mechanism being located at a part of said body 402 chosen from the group consisting of an outer surface, an inner surface (fig. 19 and [0106], middle layer 442 is located within module 432, which engages socket 420 of the body 402; therefore, the inside of module 432 can be considered the inner surface on which the layer 442 is located), and the outer surface and the inner surface.
Regarding claim 18, O’Brien in view of Qu discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
O’Brien further discloses the infectious disease is chosen from the group consisting of influenza, measles, COVID-19 ([0106], if the wearer has COVID, the middle layer 442 changes color), AIDS, amebiasis, anaplasmosis, anthrax, antibiotic resistance, avian influenza, babesiosis, botulism, brucellosis, campylobacter, cat scratch disease, chickenpox, chikungunya, chlamydia trachomatis, cholera, clostridium perfringens, conjunctivitis, crusted scabies, cryptosporidiosis, cyclospora, dengue fever, diphtheria, Ebola virus disease, E. coli, eastern equine encephalitis (EEE), enterovirus 68, fifth disease, genital herpes, genital warts, giardia, gonorrhea, group A Streptococcus, Guillain-Barr syndrome, Hand, Foot & Mouth Disease, Hansen's disease, hantavirus, lice, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, herpes, herpes B virus, Hib disease, histoplasmosis, HIV, HPV (Human Papillomavirus), impetigo, Kawasaki syndrome, legionellosis, leprosy, leptospirosis, listeriosis, lyme disease, lymphocytic choriomeningitis (LCMV), malaria, Marburg virus, meningitis, meningococcal disease, MERS (Middle East Respiratory Illness), monkeypox, mononucleosis, MRSA, mumps, mycoplasma pneumoniae, neisseria meningitis, norovirus, Orf Virus (Sore Mouth), pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), PEP, pertussis, pink eye, plague, pneumococcal disease, powassan virus, psittacosis, Q fever, rabies, raccoon roundworm, rat bite fever, Reye’s Syndrome, Rickettsialpox, ringworm, rubella, salmonella, scabies, scarlet fever, shigella, shingles, smallpox, strep throat, syphilis, tetanus, toxoplasmosis, trichinosis, trichomoniasis, tuberculosis, tularemia, varicella, vibriosis, viral hemorrhagic fevers (VHF), West Nile virus, whooping cough, yellow fever, yersiniosis, and zika virus.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien et al. US 2021/0086005 A1 in view of Qu et al. US 2018/0368492 A1 further in view of Hahne US 2008/0092909 A1.
Regarding claim 7, O’Brien in view of Qu discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
O’Brien in view of Qu is silent on said used indicator mechanism further including a color change mechanism for changing said body from a first unused color to a second used color.
However, Hahne teaches a face mask (fig. 1 and [0027], face mask) comprising a used indicator mechanism 21 further including a color change mechanism for changing said body 10 from a first unused color to a second unused color (fig. 1 and [0050], the use indicator 21, which overlies the body 10, can be a photosensitive material that darkens over time upon exposure to light, which may also correlate with use; thus, the color of the material would go from a light color to a darker color (i.e., a color change, which would be visible on the body 10); please also note that Hahne teaches in [0050] that one or more different use indicators can be used in the same mask, thus providing a rationale for combining Hahne and Qu’s indicator for use together).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided said used indicator mechanism of O’Brien in view of Qu with a color change mechanism for changing said body from a first unused color to a second used color, to provide an additional indicator “to alert the wearer when to change the mask” ([0050]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien et al. US 2021/0086005 A1 in view of Qu et al. US 2018/0368492 A1 further in view of Hahne US 2008/0092909 A1 and Eisenbrey et al. US 2019/0125011 A1.
Regarding claim 8, O’Brien in view of Qu further in view of Hahne discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
O’Brien in view of Qu further in view of Hahne is silent on said first unused color being chosen from the group consisting of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple, grey, black, and white and wherein said second used color is chosen from the group consisting of red, orange, yellow green, blue, purple, grey, black, and white.
However, Eisenbrey teaches a face mask 1 (fig. 1 and [0040], facial mask 1) comprising a color change mechanism comprising a first color chosen from the group consisting of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple, grey, black, and white and wherein a second color is chosen from the group consisting of red, orange, yellow green, blue, purple, grey, black, and white ([0068], thermochromatic paints turn masks from blue to white when exposed to heat).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the first unused color and the second used color of O’Brien in view of Qu further in view of Hahne such that the first unused color is chosen from the group consisting of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple, grey, black, and white and wherein said second used color is chosen from the group consisting of red, orange, yellow green, blue, purple, grey, black, and white, as taught by Eisenbrey, as blue and white provide a significant color contrast that would be easy to spot.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien et al. US 2021/0086005 A1 in view of Qu et al. US 2018/0368492 A1 further in view of Daniels 2021/0321903 A1.
Regarding claim 11, O’Brien in view of Qu discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
O’Brien in view of Qu is silent on said infectious disease detection mechanism including a mechanism chosen from the group consisting of antibody detection, DNA detection, RNA detection, and protein detection.
However, Daniels teaches said infectious disease detection mechanism including a mechanism chosen from the group consisting of antibody detection, DNA detection, RNA detection, and protein detection ([0005], testing for biomarkers to indicate exposure, infection and recovery from COVID include protein and RNA testing, as well as antibody testing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified said infectious disease detection mechanism of O’Brien in view of Qu to include a mechanism chosen from the group consisting of antibody detection, DNA detection, RNA detection, and protein detection, as taught by Daniels, to indicate exposure, infection, and recovery from a virus ([0005]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien et al. US 2021/0086005 A1 in view of Qu et al. US 2018/0368492 A1 further in view of Hahne US 2008/0092909 A1 and Heeger et al. US 2021/0333262 A1.
Regarding claim 13, O’Brien in view of Qu further in view of Hahne discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
O’Brien in view of Qu further in view of Hahne is silent on said color change mechanism being a different color than said used indicator mechanism.
However, Heeger teaches a face mask 12 (fig. 1 and [0024]) comprising two indicators being different colors ([0025], a color different from the color indicating a positive test may be used to indicate a negative test).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the color change mechanism and used indicator mechanism of O’Brien in view of Qu further in view of Hahne to be a different color from each other, as taught by Heeger, to ensure the wearer can properly interpret the meaning of a certain color that is indicated.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien et al. US 2021/0086005 A1 in view of Qu et al. US 2018/0368492 A1 further in view of Bedolla Pantoja et al. US 2021/0349035 A1.
Regarding claim 19, O’Brien in view of Qu discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
O’Brien in view of Qu is silent on a disease environmental presence indicator operatively integrated thereon for indicating whether there is any disease present in a surrounding environment.
However, Bedolla Pantoja teaches an analogous mask (fig. 1 and [0008]) comprising a disease environmental presence indicator operatively integrated thereon for indicating whether there is any disease present in a surrounding environment (figs. 2a-c and [0013], presence of a biological entity in the environment is detected via a liquid crystal detection unit when there is a change in mesogens; [0027], the LC film can be seen on the face mask in fig. 2b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the mask of O’Brien in view of Qu with a disease environmental presence indicator operatively integrated thereon for indicating whether there is any disease present in a surrounding environment, as taught by Bedolla Pantoja, to alert wearers to dangerous contaminants in the surrounding air.
Regarding claim 20, O’Brien in view of Qu further in view of Bedolla Pantoja discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Bedolla Pantoja further teaches said disease environmental presence indicator being further defined as a mechanism chosen from the group consisting of a color change mechanism ([0014], the change in mesogens can include a change in color), to allow immediate visual detection.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien et al. US 2021/0086005 A1 in view of Qu et al. US 2018/0368492 A1 further in view of Bedolla Pantoja et al. US 2021/0349035 A1 and Potnis et al. US 2019/0126585 A1.
Regarding claim 21, O’Brien in view of Qu further in view of Bedolla Pantoja discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
O’Brien in view of Qu further in view of Bedolla Pantoja is silent on a membrane between an outer surface and an inner surface of said face mask.
However, Potnis teaches a face mask 100 (fig. 1 and [0068], multi-layered structure including face masks) comprising a membrane between an outer surface and an inner surface of said face mask 100 ([0068], two or more layers can be used to form the multi-layered structure; thus, in at least a three-layered construction, the middle layer is the membrane).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the face mask of O’Brien in view of Qu further in view of Bedolla Pantoja with a membrane between an outer surface and an inner surface of said face mask, as taught by Potnis, for additional filtration and protection of the wearer.
Regarding claim 22, O’Brien in view of Qu further in view of Bedolla Pantoja and Potnis discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Potnis further teaches said membrane being made of a material chosen from the group consisting of polytetrafluoroethylene, polyurethane, polyolefins, polyamides, polyester, polyether, and polyether based copolymers ([0066], the multi-layered structure can include layers made of thermoplastic polyolefins), to be thin and breathable ([0066]).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien et al. US 2021/0086005 A1 in view of Lemelson US 4,856,509.
Regarding claim 30, O’Brien discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
O’Brien is silent preventing disease molecules from entering the face mask or exiting the face mask with a membrane between an outer surface and an inner surface of the face mask.
However, Lemelson teaches a face mask 36 (fig. 7 and col. 7, line 10) comprising the step of preventing disease molecules from entering the face mask 36 or exiting the face mask 36 with a membrane between an outer surface and an inner surface of the face mask 36 (fig. 7 and col. 7, lines 24-42, a layer of chemicals may be disposed between the inner and outer sheets of the mask body 36 to kill disease germs which pass through the mask, which would include entering or exiting).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the method of O’Brien with preventing disease molecules from entering the face mask or exiting the face mask with a membrane between an outer surface and an inner surface of the face mask, as taught by Lemelson, to further prevent the spread of communicable airborne disease.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE J LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7303. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 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, ALIREZA NIA can be reached at (571)270-3076. 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.
/MICHELLE J LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786