DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 11, 17, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“a mask” in claim 1, line 5 should be amended to recite --the mask--
“or outer surface” in claim 3, line 3 should be amended to recite --or an outer surface--
“pleat disposed” in claim 8, line 1 should be amended to recite --pleat is disposed-- (the at least one pleat has not previously been described as being disposed between the side edges)
“second stiffening” in claim 10, line 2 should be amended to recite --second malleable stiffening--
“a mask” in claim 11, line 6 should be amended to recite --the mask--
“a mask” in claim 17, line 5 should be amended to recite --the mask--
“the masks” in claim 17, line 12 should be amended to recite --the plurality of filter masks--
“outside” in claim 17, line 14 should be amended to recite --outer--
“a stack” in claim 17, line 14 should be amended to recite --the stack--
“the bend portion” in claim 19, line 1 should be amended to recite --the bend portion of each mask--
“the bend portion” in claim 20, line 1 should be amended to recite --the bend portion of each mask--
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “means for securing” in claims 1, 11, and 17.
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 § 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 1-20 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, the term “generally” in line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Further, the claim recites “the nose portion” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the term “about” in line 3 and 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the term “about” in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 11, the term “generally” in line 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Further, the claim recites “the nose portion” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the term “about” in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 13, the term “about” in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 17, the term “generally” in line 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Further, the claim recites “the nose portion” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 19, the term “about” in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 20, the term “about” in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claims 2, 5-10, 14-16, and 18, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, by virtue of their dependence on claims 1, 11, and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Regarding claim 6, the claim positively recites a health care worker in lines 2-3. Language such as “configured” or “adapted” is suggested to avoid claiming a human organism.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Jensen US 2005/0133034 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Jensen discloses a filter mask 20 (fig. 1 and [0031], filter mask 20) comprising: a filter material 22 ([0035], filter material 22) having an inner surface 46 to be worn against a wearer’s face (fig. 3 and [0042], inner surface 46 to be worn next to the face), the filter material 22 comprising at least one pleat 24/26 (fig. 1 and [0032], pleating 24/26) for folding and unfolding the filter material 22 such that when folded the filter material 22 assumes a generally flat storage configuration (fig. 6, where the pleating 24/26 is capable of allowing the mask 20 to be in a largely folded/flat configuration for storage, vs. fig. 3 which shows the mask 20 in the largely unfolded/cup-like configuration) having upper 32, lower 34 and side edges 36/38 (fig. 7 and [0039]) and such that when unfolded the filter material 22 forms a mask 20 configured to cover the nose and mouth of the wearer (fig. 1), the at least one pleat 24/26 disposed between at least the upper and lower edges 32/34 (fig. 7, the pleats 24/26 being made along the height of the mask between the upper and lower edges 32/34) and configured to fit over a chin of the wearer when unfolded (fig. 1); a malleable stiffening member 52 attached to or within the filter material 22 proximate to the upper edge 32 (figs. 6 and 7 and [0043], malleable stiffener 52 being placed directly next to the upper edge 32; [0045], stiffener 52 is attached to the filter material 22 via tape 64), the malleable stiffening member 52 configured to conform the filter material 22 to at least a nose portion and a cheek portion of the face of the wearer ([0043], the stiffeners are pliant enough to be bent to a shape that conforms to the face of the wearer, and figs. 1 and 2 show the upper edge of the mask, where upper stiffener 52 is located, extending across the nose and cheeks; therefore, the malleable stiffener 52 is capable of conforming the filter material 22 to the nose and cheek of the wearer), the malleable stiffening member 52 having a bend portion indicating at least the inner surface and the nose portion of the filter mask 20 (fig. 3 shows the upper edge of the mask where the malleable stiffener 52 has a bend, forming a concave side indicative of the inner surface and the portion where the nose should be situated); and a means 28/30 for securing the filter material to the wearer’s face (fig. 1 and [0050], headbands 28/30, which may alternatively be ear loops).
Regarding claim 2, Jensen discloses a second malleable stiffening member 54 attached to or within the filter material 22 proximate to the lower edge 34 (figs. 6 and 7 and [0043], malleable stiffener 54 being placed directly next to the lower edge 34; [0045], stiffener 54 is attached to the filter material 22 via tape 66), the second malleable stiffening member 54 configured to conform the filter material 22 to at least a chin portion and a jaw portion of the face of the wearer ([0043], the stiffeners are pliant enough to be bent to a shape that conforms to the face of the wearer, and figs. 1 and 2 show the lower edge of the mask, where lower stiffener 54 is located, extending across the chin and jaw; therefore, the malleable stiffener 54 is capable of conforming the filter material 22 to the chin and jaw of the wearer) and the bend portion indicates an outer surface of the mask (fig. 3 shows the upper edge of the mask where the malleable stiffener 52 is having the bend as previously discussed, forming a convex side indicative of the outer surface of the mask).
Regarding claim 5, Jensen discloses the filter material 22 comprising an outer layer 40, an inner layer 44 and a middle layer 48/50 of a material having a high filtration efficiency (fig. 7 and [0042], filter material 22 comprises outer layer 40, inner layer 44, and middle layers 48/50; claim 11, the outer, inner, and middle layer are of a material having a high filtration efficiency).
Regarding claim 6, Jensen discloses the malleable stiffening member being embedded within the filter material proximate to the upper edge or the filter mask 20 being used by a health care worker ([0033], filter mask 20 is made of disposable materials so that it may be used in surgical applications).
Regarding claim 8, Jensen discloses the at least one pleat 24/26 disposed between the upper, lower and side edges 32/34/36/38 providing a breathing chamber when unfolded (fig. 2 shows the mask in the unfolded, rounded configuration, forming a breathing chamber within the mask).
Regarding claim 10, Jensen discloses the malleable stiffening member 52 and second stiffening member 54 comprising aluminum strips ([0044], stiffeners 52/54 may be formed of aluminum, and can be seen in fig. 7 being strips).
Regarding claim 11, Jensen discloses a filter mask 20 (fig. 1 and [0031], filter mask 20) comprising: a filter material 22 ([0035], filter material 22) having an inner surface 46 to be worn against a wearer’s face (fig. 3 and [0042], inner surface 46 to be worn next to the face), and an outer surface 42 (fig. 7 and [0042], outer surface 42 exposed to the environment), the filter material 22 comprising at least one pleat 24/26 (fig. 1 and [0032], pleating 24/26) for folding and unfolding the filter material 22 such that when folded the filter material 22 assumes a generally flat storage configuration (fig. 6, where the pleating 24/26 is capable of allowing the mask 20 to be in a largely folded/flat configuration for storage, vs. fig. 3 which shows the mask 20 in the largely unfolded/cup-like configuration) having upper 32, lower 34 and side edges 36/38 (fig. 7 and [0039]) and such that when unfolded the filter material 22 forms a mask 20 configured to cover the nose and mouth of the wearer (fig. 1), the at least one pleat 24/26 disposed between the upper, lower, and side edges 32/34/36/38 (fig. 7, the pleats 24/26 being made in the body of the mask within the perimeter formed by the outer edges) and configured to fit over a chin of the wearer and to provide a breathing chamber when unfolded (figs. 1 and 2, the mask capable of fitting over the chin and providing a chamber/space within the mask when the pleats are unfolded); a first malleable stiffening member 52 attached to or within the filter material 22 proximate to the upper edge 32 (figs. 6 and 7 and [0043], malleable stiffener 52 being placed directly next to the upper edge 32; [0045], stiffener 52 is attached to the filter material 22 via tape 64), the first malleable stiffening member 52 configured to conform the filter material 22 to at least a nose portion and a cheek portion of the face of the wearer ([0043], the stiffeners are pliant enough to be bent to a shape that conforms to the face of the wearer, and figs. 1 and 2 show the upper edge of the mask, where upper stiffener 52 is located, extending across the nose and cheeks; therefore, the malleable stiffener 52 is capable of conforming the filter material 22 to the nose and cheek of the wearer), the malleable stiffening member 52 having a bend portion, which is bent, creased, folded, or angled away from the inner surface 46 (fig. 3 shows the upper edge of the mask where the malleable stiffener 52 is being bent in a direction away from the inner surface and towards the outer surface of the mask, thus forming a concavity on the inner surface and convexity on the outer surface) and indicating at least the outer surface 42 and the nose portion of the filter mask (fig. 3, the convex side of the bend in the upper edge of the mask being indicative of the outer surface and nose portion/protrusion of the mask); a second malleable stiffening member 54 attached to or within the filter material 22 proximate to the lower edge 34 (figs. 6 and 7 and [0043], malleable stiffener 54 being placed directly next to the lower edge 34; [0045], stiffener 54 is attached to the filter material 22 via tape 66), the second malleable stiffening member 54 configured to conform the filter material 22 to at least a chin portion and a jaw portion of the face of the wearer ([0043], the stiffeners are pliant enough to be bent to a shape that conforms to the face of the wearer, and figs. 1 and 2 show the lower edge of the mask, where lower stiffener 54 is located, extending across the chin and jaw; therefore, the malleable stiffener 54 is capable of conforming the filter material 22 to the chin and jaw of the wearer); and a means 28/30 for securing the filter material to the wearer’s face (fig. 1 and [0050], headbands 28/30, which may alternatively be ear loops).
Regarding claim 14, Jensen discloses the filter material 22 comprising an outer layer 40, an inner layer 44 and a middle layer 48/50 of a material having a high filtration efficiency (fig. 7 and [0042], filter material 22 comprises outer layer 40, inner layer 44, and middle layers 48/50; claim 11, the outer, inner, and middle layer are of a material having a high filtration efficiency).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3 and 12 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jensen US 2005/0133034 A1 in view of Castiglione US 5,558,089.
Regarding claim 3, Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Jensen further discloses the means for securing 28/30 comprising a pair of ear loops attached to the filter material 22 and the bend portion which is crimped, bent, creased, folded or angled toward the inner surface or outer surface of the filter mask 20 (fig. 1 and [0050], headbands 28/30, which can be seen in the figure attached to the filter material 22, may be ear loops; fig. 3, the bend at the top edge is bent in the direction of the outer surface of the mask, thus forming a concavity on the inner surface and convexity on the outer surface).
Jensen is silent on the bend being by about 1 to 10 degrees or by 1 mm to about 50 mm.
However, Castiglione teaches a face mask 10 (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 7-12) comprising an analogous aluminum nose strip 12 (figs. 1 and 3 and col. 4, lines 55-56) with a bend of about 1 to 10 degrees (fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 33-35, angle gamma formed by a bend in the strip 12 is about 20 degrees, which may be considered about 10 degrees) or by 1 mm to about 50 mm.
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 bend of Jensen to be by about 1 to 10 degrees or by 1 mm to about 50 mm, as taught by Castiglione, as this may provide the most comfortable seal for a particular wearer depending on their facial anatomy.
Regarding claim 12, Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Jensen further discloses the means for securing 28/30 comprising a pair of ear loops attached to said filter material 22 (fig. 1 and [0050], headbands 28/30, which can be seen in the figure being attached to the filter material 22, may be ear loops).
Jensen is silent on the bend portion being bent by about 1 to 10 degrees.
However, Castiglione teaches a face mask 10 (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 7-12) comprising an analogous aluminum nose strip 12 (figs. 1 and 3 and col. 4, lines 55-56) with a bend of about 1 to 10 degrees (fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 33-35, angle gamma formed by a bend in the strip 12 is about 20 degrees, which may be considered about 10 degrees).
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 bend of Jensen to be by about 1 to 10 degrees, as taught by Castiglione, as this may provide the most comfortable seal for a particular wearer depending on their facial anatomy.
Claims 4 and 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jensen US 2005/0133034 A1 in view of Castiglione US 5,558,089 further in view of Miura US 5,727,544.
Regarding claim 4, Jensen in view of Castiglione discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Castiglione further teaches the bend portion being bent by about 1 mm to about 20 mm (fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 21-26, distance B formed by a bend in the strip 12 is 10 to 40 mm), to provide sufficient length in the side/wing of the strip to securely conform to the side of the nose and cheek.
Jensen in view of Castiglione is silent on the ear loops being formed of an elastic material.
However, Miura teaches a face mask 2 (fig. 1A and col. 4, lines 24-28) comprising analogous ear loops 6/6 formed of an elastic material (col. 4, line 31).
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 ear loops of Jensen in view of Castiglione to be formed of an elastic material, as taught by Miura, to be comfortable to wear around the ears.
Regarding claim 13, Jensen in view of Castiglione discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Castiglione further teaches the bend portion being bent by about 1 mm to about 50 mm (fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 21-26, distance B formed by a bend in the strip 12 is 10 to 40 mm), to provide sufficient length in the side/wing of the strip to securely conform to the side of the nose and cheek.
Jensen in view of Castiglione is silent on the ear loops being formed of an elastic material.
However, Miura teaches a face mask 2 (fig. 1A and col. 4, lines 24-28) comprising analogous ear loops 6/6 formed of an elastic material (col. 4, line 31).
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 ear loops of Jensen in view of Castiglione to be formed of an elastic material, as taught by Miura, to be comfortable to wear around the ears.
Claims 7 and 16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jensen US 2005/0133034 A1 in view of Miyake et al. US 6,336,459 B1.
Regarding claim 7, Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Jensen is silent on the malleable stiffening member having a length longer than the second malleable stiffening member.
However, Miyake teaches a face mask (fig. 13) comprising a malleable stiffening member 6 having a length longer than the second malleable stiffening member 10 (fig. 14, member 6 being longer than member 10; col. 5, lines 1-5, elastic member 10 enlarges the mask and maintains it in convex shape, thus indicating it is malleable and stiffening; col. 3, lines 9-12 describes deformable nose clamp 6).
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 malleable stiffening member of Jensen to have a length longer than the second malleable stiffening member, as taught by Miyake, to ensure adequate sealing along the nose and cheeks to prevent fog from rising up.
Regarding claim 16, Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Jensen is silent on the first malleable stiffening member having a length longer than the second malleable stiffening member.
However, Miyake teaches a face mask (fig. 13) comprising a first malleable stiffening member 6 having a length longer than the second malleable stiffening member 10 (fig. 14, member 6 being longer than member 10; col. 5, lines 1-5, elastic member 10 enlarges the mask and maintains it in convex shape, thus indicating it is malleable and stiffening; col. 3, lines 9-12 describes deformable nose clamp 6).
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 malleable stiffening member of Jensen to have a length longer than the second malleable stiffening member, as taught by Miyake, to ensure adequate sealing along the nose and cheeks to prevent fog from rising up.
Claims 9, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jensen US 2005/0133034 A1 in view of Bowen US 2009/0205666 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Jensen is silent on the filter mask comprising at least three pleats.
However, Bowen teaches an analogous filter mask 11 (fig. 4 and [0042], mask material 23 of mask 11 comprises filter media) comprising at least three pleats 13 (fig. 1 and [0033], pleats 13).
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 pleats of Jensen such that there are at least three, as taught by Bowen, for further unfolding capacity to create a larger chamber within the mask.
Regarding claim 17, Jensen discloses a filter mask 20 (fig. 1 and [0031], filter mask 20) comprising a filter material 22 ([0035], filter material 22) having an inner surface 46 to be worn against a wearer’s face (fig. 3 and [0042], inner surface 46 to be worn next to the face), and an outer surface 42 (fig. 7 and [0042], outer surface 42 exposed to the environment), the filter material 22 comprising at least one pleat 24/26 (fig. 1 and [0032], pleating 24/26) for folding and unfolding the filter material 22 such that when folded the filter material 22 assumes a generally flat storage configuration (fig. 6, where the pleating 24/26 is capable of allowing the mask 20 to be in a largely folded/flat configuration for storage, vs. fig. 3 which shows the mask 20 in the largely unfolded/cup-like configuration) having upper 32, lower 34 and side edges 36/38 (fig. 7 and [0039]) and such that when unfolded the filter material 22 forms a mask 20 configured to cover the nose and mouth of the wearer (fig. 1), the at least one pleat 24/26 disposed between the upper and lower edges 32/34 (fig. 7, the pleats 24/26 being made along the height of the mask between the upper and lower edges 32/34) and configured to fit over a chin of the wearer when unfolded (fig. 1); a malleable stiffening member 52 attached to or within the filter material 22 proximate to the upper edge 32 (figs. 6 and 7 and [0043], malleable stiffener 52 being placed directly next to the upper edge 32; [0045], stiffener 52 is attached to the filter material 22 via tape 64), the malleable stiffening member 52 configured to conform the filter material 22 to at least a nose portion and a cheek portion of the face of the wearer ([0043], the stiffeners are pliant enough to be bent to a shape that conforms to the face of the wearer, and figs. 1 and 2 show the upper edge of the mask, where upper stiffener 52 is located, extending across the nose and cheeks; therefore, the malleable stiffener 52 is capable of conforming the filter material 22 to the nose and cheek of the wearer), the malleable stiffening member 52 having a bend portion (fig. 3 shows the upper edge of the mask where the malleable stiffener 52 has a bend forming a concave and convex side) indicating at least the outer surface 42 and the nose portion of the filter mask (fig. 3, the convex side of the bend in the upper edge of the mask being indicative of the outer surface and nose portion/protrusion of the mask); a securing means 28/30 for securing the filter material to the wearer’s face (fig. 1 and [0050], headbands 28/30, which may alternatively be ear loops).
Jensen is silent on a stack of filter masks comprising: a plurality of filter masks; wherein the masks are positioned in a nestled relation to one another, the inner surface of at least one mask being opposed to the outside surface of an adjacent mask, thereby forming a stack.
However, Bowen teaches a stack 43 of filter masks 11 (fig. 4 and [0060], face masks 11 may be stacked in stack 43) comprising: a plurality of filter masks 11 (fig. 4 and [0042], mask material 23 of mask 11 comprises filter media); wherein the masks 11 are positioned in a nestled relation to one another (fig. 4 and [0060], stack 43 comprises masks 11 having nose contours 19, which are nested), the inner surface of at least one mask 11 being opposed to the outside surface of an adjacent mask 11, thereby forming a stack 43 (fig. 4 shows the masks 11 laid on top of each other, such that one side (such as the inner surface) of a mask would be opposite the other side (such as the outer surface) of another mask).
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 filter mask of Jensen as a stack of filter masks comprising: a plurality of filter masks; wherein the masks are positioned in a nestled relation to one another, the inner surface of at least one mask being opposed to the outside surface of an adjacent mask, thereby forming a stack, as taught by Bowen, to provide a plurality of masks in a neat and presentable configuration for continued use; further, as Jensen’s mask comprises malleable stiffeners that may take the form of a bend, similar to Bowen’s nose contours, providing the masks in a stacked, nested configuration allows them to be organized neatly.
Regarding claim 18, Jensen in view of Bowen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Bowen further teaches analogous bend portions 19 of each mask 11 being adapted to maintain a distance between adjacent masks 11 (figs. 4 and 5 shows there being slight spacing between each mask 11), to allow each mask to be individually chosen and removed from the stack.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jensen US 2005/0133034 A1 in view of Miura US 5,727,544.
Regarding claim 15, Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Jensen is silent on the first malleable stiffening member and the second malleable stiffening members being embedded within the filter material.
However, Miura teaches a face mask 2 (fig. 1A and col. 4, lines 24-28) comprising an analogous stiffening member 11 embedded within the analogous mask material (fig. 1A and col. 4, lines 40-41).
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 and second malleable stiffening members of Jensen to be embedded within the filter material, as taught by Miura, so as to present a more aesthetically pleasing appearance to the mask.
Claims 19 and 20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jensen US 2005/0133034 A1 in view of Bowen US 2009/0205666 A1 further in view of Castiglione US 5,558,089.
Regarding claim 19, Jensen in view of Bowen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Jensen in view of Bowen is silent on the bend portion being bent by about 1 to 10 degrees.
However, Castiglione teaches a face mask 10 (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 7-12) comprising an analogous aluminum nose strip 12 (figs. 1 and 3 and col. 4, lines 55-56) with a bend of about 1 to 10 degrees (fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 33-35, angle gamma formed by a bend in the strip 12 is about 20 degrees, which may be considered about 10 degrees).
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 bend portion of Jensen in view of Bowen to be bent by about 1 to 10 degrees, as taught by Castiglione, as this may provide the most comfortable seal for a particular wearer depending on their facial anatomy.
Regarding claim 20, Jensen in view of Bowen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Jensen in view of Bowen is silent on the bend portion being bent by about 35 to 50 mm.
However, Castiglione teaches a face mask 10 (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 7-12) comprising an analogous aluminum nose strip 12 (figs. 1 and 3 and col. 4, lines 55-56) with a bend of about 35 to 50 mm (fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 21-26, distance B formed by a bend in the strip 12 is 10 to 40 mm).
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 bend portion of Jensen in view of Bowen to be bent by about 35 to 50 mm, as taught by Castiglione, to provide sufficient length in the side/wing of the strip to securely conform to the side of the nose and cheek.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 14, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 10,668,308 B2 in view of Jensen US 2005/0133034 A1.
Regarding claim 1, the patent claims the entirety of the claim (claim 1), except the bend portion indicating at least the inner surface and the nose portion of the filter mask.
However, Jensen teaches a filter mask 20 (fig. 1 and [0031], filter mask 20) comprising a malleable stiffening member 52 (figs. 6 and 7 and [0043], malleable stiffener 52 being placed directly next to the upper edge 32) with a bend portion indicating at least the inner surface and the nose portion of the filter mask 20 (fig. 3 shows the upper edge of the mask where the malleable stiffener 52 has a bend, forming a concave side indicative of the inner surface and nose portion of the mask).
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 bend portion of the patent to indicate at least the inner surface and the nose portion of the filter mask, as taught by Jensen, to allow the nose to be comfortably situated within the concavity of the mask.
Regarding claim 2, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the entirety of the claim (claim 1), except the second malleable stiffening member configured to conform the filter material to a jaw portion of the face of the wearer and the bend portion indicating an outer surface of the mask.
However, Jensen further teaches a second malleable stiffening member 54 (figs. 6 and 7 and [0043], malleable stiffener 54 being placed directly next to the lower edge 34), the second malleable stiffening member 54 configured to conform the filter material 22 to a jaw portion of the face of the wearer ([0043], the stiffeners are pliant enough to be bent to a shape that conforms to the face of the wearer, and figs. 1 and 2 show the lower edge of the mask, where lower stiffener 54 is located, extending across the chin and jaw; therefore, the malleable stiffener 54 is capable of conforming the filter material 22 to the chin and jaw of the wearer) and the bend portion indicates an outer surface of the mask (fig. 3 shows the upper edge of the mask where the malleable stiffener 52 is having the bend as previously discussed, forming a convex side indicative of the outer surface of the mask).
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 mask of the patent in view of Jensen such that the second malleable stiffening member is configured to conform the filter material to a jaw portion of the face of the wearer and the bend portion indicates an outer surface of the mask, to allow the mask to be sealed along the jaw to prevent ingress of contaminated air.
Regarding claim 5, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Jensen further teaches the filter material 22 comprising an outer layer 40, an inner layer 44 and a middle layer 48/50 of a material having a high filtration efficiency (fig. 7 and [0042], filter material 22 comprises outer layer 40, inner layer 44, and middle layers 48/50; claim 11, the outer, inner, and middle layer are of a material having a high filtration efficiency), to enhance the filtration capabilities of the mask.
Regarding claim 6, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Jensen further teaches the malleable stiffening member being embedded within the filter material proximate to the upper edge or the filter mask 20 being used by a health care worker ([0033], filter mask 20 is made of disposable materials so that it may be used in surgical applications), to protect health care workers from contaminated air.
Regarding claim 7, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the entirety of the claim (claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Jensen further teaches the at least one pleat 24/26 disposed between the upper, lower and side edges 32/34/36/38 providing a breathing chamber when unfolded (fig. 2 shows the mask in the unfolded, rounded configuration, forming a breathing chamber within the mask), to allow for comfortable breathing.
Regarding claim 10, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Jensen further teaches the malleable stiffening member 52 and second stiffening member 54 comprising aluminum strips ([0044], stiffeners 52/54 may be formed of aluminum, and can be seen in fig. 7 being strips), as aluminum is sturdy but light, making it comfortable to wear.
Regarding claim 11, the patent claims the entirety of the claim (claim 1), except an outer surface, the at least one pleat disposed between the side edges, the bend portion being bent, creased, folded, or angled away from the inner surface and indicating at least the outer surface and the nose portion of the filter mask, the second malleable stiffening member configured to conform the filter material to a jaw portion of the face of the wearer.
However, Jensen teaches a filter mask 20 (fig. 1 and [0031], filter mask 20) comprising: an outer surface 42 (fig. 7 and [0042], outer surface 42 exposed to the environment), the at least one pleat 24/26 disposed between the side edges 32/34/36/38 (fig. 7, the pleats 24/26 being made in the body of the mask within the perimeter formed by the outer edges), a first malleable stiffening member 52 (figs. 6 and 7 and [0043], malleable stiffener 52 being placed directly next to the upper edge 32) having a bend portion, which is bent, creased, folded, or angled away from the inner surface 46 (fig. 3 shows the upper edge of the mask where the malleable stiffener 52 is being bent in a direction away from the inner surface and towards the outer surface of the mask, thus forming a concavity on the inner surface and convexity on the outer surface) and indicating at least the outer surface 42 and the nose portion of the filter mask (fig. 3, the convex side of the bend in the upper edge of the mask being indicative of the outer surface and nose portion/protrusion of the mask); a second malleable stiffening member 54 (figs. 6 and 7 and [0043], malleable stiffener 54 being placed directly next to the lower edge 34), the second malleable stiffening member 54 configured to conform the filter material 22 to a jaw portion of the face of the wearer ([0043], the stiffeners are pliant enough to be bent to a shape that conforms to the face of the wearer, and figs. 1 and 2 show the lower edge of the mask, where lower stiffener 54 is located, extending across the chin and jaw; therefore, the malleable stiffener 54 is capable of conforming the filter material 22 to the chin and jaw of the wearer).
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 mask of the patent to have an outer surface, the at least one pleat disposed between the side edges, the bend portion being bent, creased, folded, or angled away from the inner surface and indicating at least the outer surface and the nose portion of the filter mask, the second malleable stiffening member configured to conform the filter material to a jaw portion of the face of the wearer, as taught by Jensen, such that the outer surface can interface with the external environment, the pleat is formed in the body of the mask to form a chamber when unfolded, the bend portion allowing a user to use the concave/convex shape to position their nose, and to seal the mask against the jaw to prevent contamination.
Regarding claim 14, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Jensen further teaches the filter material 22 comprising an outer layer 40, an inner layer 44 and a middle layer 48/50 of a material having a high filtration efficiency (fig. 7 and [0042], filter material 22 comprises outer layer 40, inner layer 44, and middle layers 48/50; claim 11, the outer, inner, and middle layer are of a material having a high filtration efficiency), to enhance the filtration capabilities of the mask.
Regarding claim 16, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the entirety of the claim (claim 1).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 10,668,308 B2 in view of Jensen US 2005/0133034 A1 further in view of Castiglione US 5,558,089.
Regarding claim 3, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the means for securing comprising a pair of ear loops attached to the filter material (claim 1).
Jensen in view of the patent is silent on the bend being by about 1 to 10 degrees or by 1 mm to about 50 mm.
However, Castiglione teaches a face mask 10 (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 7-12) comprising an analogous aluminum nose strip 12 (figs. 1 and 3 and col. 4, lines 55-56) with a bend of about 1 to 10 degrees (fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 33-35, angle gamma formed by a bend in the strip 12 is about 20 degrees, which may be considered about 10 degrees) or by 1 mm to about 50 mm.
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 bend of Jensen in view of the patent to be by about 1 to 10 degrees or by 1 mm to about 50 mm, as taught by Castiglione, as this may provide the most comfortable seal for a particular wearer depending on their facial anatomy.
Regarding claim 12, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the means for securing comprising a pair of ear loops attached to the filter material (claim 1).
The patent in view of Jensen is silent on the bend portion being bent by about 1 to 10 degrees.
However, Castiglione teaches a face mask 10 (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 7-12) comprising an analogous aluminum nose strip 12 (figs. 1 and 3 and col. 4, lines 55-56) with a bend of about 1 to 10 degrees (fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 33-35, angle gamma formed by a bend in the strip 12 is about 20 degrees, which may be considered about 10 degrees).
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 bend of Jensen in view of the patent to be by about 1 to 10 degrees, as taught by Castiglione, as this may provide the most comfortable seal for a particular wearer depending on their facial anatomy.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 10,668,308 B2 in view of Jensen US 2005/0133034 A1 further in view of Castiglione US 5,558,089 and Miura US 5,727,544.
Regarding claim 4, the patent in view of Jensen further in view of Castiglione discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Castiglione further teaches the bend portion being bent by about 1 mm to about 20 mm (fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 21-26, distance B formed by a bend in the strip 12 is 10 to 40 mm), to provide sufficient length in the side/wing of the strip to securely conform to the side of the nose and cheek.
The patent in view of Jensen further in view of Castiglione is silent on the ear loops being formed of an elastic material.
However, Miura teaches a face mask 2 (fig. 1A and col. 4, lines 24-28) comprising analogous ear loops 6/6 formed of an elastic material (col. 4, line 31).
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 ear loops of the patent in view of Jensen further in view of Castiglione to be formed of an elastic material, as taught by Miura, to be comfortable to wear around the ears.
Regarding claim 13, the patent in view of Jensen further in view of Castiglione discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Castiglione further teaches the bend portion being bent by about 1 mm to about 50 mm (fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 21-26, distance B formed by a bend in the strip 12 is 10 to 40 mm), to provide sufficient length in the side/wing of the strip to securely conform to the side of the nose and cheek.
The patent in view of Jensen further in view of Castiglione is silent on the ear loops being formed of an elastic material.
However, Miura teaches a face mask 2 (fig. 1A and col. 4, lines 24-28) comprising analogous ear loops 6/6 formed of an elastic material (col. 4, line 31).
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 ear loops of the patent in view of Jensen further in view of Castiglione to be formed of an elastic material, as taught by Miura, to be comfortable to wear around the ears.
Claims 9, 17, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 10,668,308 B2 in view of Jensen US 2005/0133034 A1 further in view of Bowen US 2009/0205666 A1.
Regarding claim 9, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent in view of Jensen is silent on the filter mask comprising at least three pleats.
However, Bowen teaches an analogous filter mask 11 (fig. 4 and [0042], mask material 23 of mask 11 comprises filter media) comprising at least three pleats 13 (fig. 1 and [0033], pleats 13).
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 pleats of the patent in view of Jensen such that there are at least three, as taught by Bowen, for further unfolding capacity to create a larger chamber within the mask.
Regarding claim 17, the patent claims the entirety of the claim (claim 1), except a stack of filter masks: comprising a plurality of filter masks, each filter mask comprising an outer surface, the malleable stiffening member having a bend portion indicating at least the outer surface and the nose portion of the filter mask; and wherein the masks are positioned in a nestled relation to one another, the inner surface of at least one mask being opposed to the outside surface of an adjacent mask, thereby forming a stack.
However, Jensen teaches a filter mask 20 (fig. 1 and [0031], filter mask 20) comprising a filter material 22 ([0035], filter material 22) having an outer surface 42 (fig. 7 and [0042], outer surface 42 exposed to the environment), a malleable stiffening member 52 (figs. 6 and 7 and [0043], malleable stiffener 52 being placed directly next to the upper edge 32) having a bend portion (fig. 3 shows the upper edge of the mask where the malleable stiffener 52 has a bend forming a concave and convex side) indicating at least the outer surface 42 and the nose portion of the filter mask (fig. 3, the convex side of the bend in the upper edge of the mask being indicative of the outer surface and nose portion/protrusion of the mask).
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 mask of the patent such that each filter mask comprises an outer surface, the malleable stiffening member having a bend portion indicating at least the outer surface and the nose portion of the filter mask, as taught by Jensen, so as to interface with the external environment and allow the user to properly place their nose in the correct position in the mask.
The patent in view of Jensen is silent on a stack of filter masks comprising: a plurality of filter masks; wherein the masks are positioned in a nestled relation to one another, the inner surface of at least one mask being opposed to the outside surface of an adjacent mask, thereby forming a stack.
However, Bowen teaches a stack 43 of filter masks 11 (fig. 4 and [0060], face masks 11 may be stacked in stack 43) comprising: a plurality of filter masks 11 (fig. 4 and [0042], mask material 23 of mask 11 comprises filter media); wherein the masks 11 are positioned in a nestled relation to one another (fig. 4 and [0060], stack 43 comprises masks 11 having nose contours 19, which are nested), the inner surface of at least one mask 11 being opposed to the outside surface of an adjacent mask 11, thereby forming a stack 43 (fig. 4 shows the masks 11 laid on top of each other, such that one side (such as the inner surface) of a mask would be opposite the other side (such as the outer surface) of another mask).
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 filter mask of the patent in view of Jensen as a stack of filter masks comprising: a plurality of filter masks; wherein the masks are positioned in a nestled relation to one another, the inner surface of at least one mask being opposed to the outside surface of an adjacent mask, thereby forming a stack, as taught by Bowen, to provide a plurality of masks in a neat and presentable configuration for continued use; further, as Jensen’s mask comprises malleable stiffeners that may take the form of a bend, similar to Bowen’s nose contours, providing the masks in a stacked, nested configuration allows them to be organized neatly.
Regarding claim 18, the patent in view of Jensen further in view of Bowen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Bowen further teaches analogous bend portions 19 of each mask 11 being adapted to maintain a distance between adjacent masks 11 (figs. 4 and 5 shows there being slight spacing between each mask 11), to allow each mask to be individually chosen and removed from the stack.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 10,668,308 B2 in view of Jensen US 2005/0133034 A1 further in view of Miura US 5,727,544.
Regarding claim 15, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent in view of Jensen is silent on the first malleable stiffening member and the second malleable stiffening members being embedded within the filter material.
However, Miura teaches a face mask 2 (fig. 1A and col. 4, lines 24-28) comprising an analogous stiffening member 11 embedded within the analogous mask material (fig. 1A and col. 4, lines 40-41).
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 and second malleable stiffening members of the patent in view of Jensen to be embedded within the filter material, as taught by Miura, so as to present a more aesthetically pleasing appearance to the mask.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 10,668,308 B2 in view of Jensen US 2005/0133034 A1 further in view of Bowen US 2009/0205666 A1 and Castiglione US 5,558,089.
Regarding claim 19, the patent in view of Jensen further in view of Bowen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent in view of Jensen further in view of Bowen is silent on the bend portion being bent by about 1 to 10 degrees.
However, Castiglione teaches a face mask 10 (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 7-12) comprising an analogous aluminum nose strip 12 (figs. 1 and 3 and col. 4, lines 55-56) with a bend of about 1 to 10 degrees (fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 33-35, angle gamma formed by a bend in the strip 12 is about 20 degrees, which may be considered about 10 degrees).
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 bend portion of the patent in view of Jensen further in view of Bowen to be bent by about 1 to 10 degrees, as taught by Castiglione, as this may provide the most comfortable seal for a particular wearer depending on their facial anatomy.
Regarding claim 20, the patent in view of Jensen further in view of Bowen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent in view of Jensen further in view of Bowen is silent on the bend portion being bent by about 35 to 50 mm.
However, Castiglione teaches a face mask 10 (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 7-12) comprising an analogous aluminum nose strip 12 (figs. 1 and 3 and col. 4, lines 55-56) with a bend of about 35 to 50 mm (fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 21-26, distance B formed by a bend in the strip 12 is 10 to 40 mm).
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 bend portion of the patent in view of Jensen further in view of Bowen to be bent by about 35 to 50 mm, as taught by Castiglione, to provide sufficient length in the side/wing of the strip to securely conform to the side of the nose and cheek.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, and 14-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims, 1, 7, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,064,651 B2 in view of Jensen US 2005/0133034 A1.
Regarding claim 1, the patent claims the entirety of the claim (claim 1), except when unfolded the filter material forms a mask configured to cover the nose and mouth of the wearer, the at least one pleat disposed between at least the upper and lower edges and configured to fit over a chin of the wearer when unfolded, the malleable stiffening member configured to conform the filter material to a cheek portion of the face of the wearer, the malleable stiffening member having a bend portion indicating at least the inner surface and the nose portion of the filter mask.
However, Jensen teaches a filter mask 20 (fig. 1 and [0031], filter mask 20) comprising: a filter material 22 ([0035], filter material 22) such that when unfolded the filter material 22 forms a mask 20 configured to cover the nose and mouth of the wearer (fig. 1), the at least one pleat 24/26 disposed between at least the upper and lower edges 32/34 (fig. 7, the pleats 24/26 being made along the height of the mask between the upper and lower edges 32/34) and configured to fit over a chin of the wearer when unfolded (fig. 1); a malleable stiffening member 52 (figs. 6 and 7 and [0043], malleable stiffener 52 being placed directly next to the upper edge 32) configured to conform the filter material 22 to a cheek portion of the face of the wearer ([0043], the stiffeners are pliant enough to be bent to a shape that conforms to the face of the wearer, and figs. 1 and 2 show the upper edge of the mask, where upper stiffener 52 is located, extending across the nose and cheeks; therefore, the malleable stiffener 52 is capable of conforming the filter material 22 to the nose and cheek of the wearer), the malleable stiffening member 52 having a bend portion indicating at least the inner surface and the nose portion of the filter mask 20 (fig. 3 shows the upper edge of the mask where the malleable stiffener 52 has a bend, forming a concave side indicative of the inner surface and the portion where the nose should be situated).
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 mask of the patent such that when unfolded the filter material forms a mask configured to cover the nose and mouth of the wearer, the at least one pleat disposed between at least the upper and lower edges and configured to fit over a chin of the wearer when unfolded, the malleable stiffening member configured to conform the filter material to a cheek portion of the face of the wearer, the malleable stiffening member having a bend portion indicating at least the inner surface and the nose portion of the filter mask, as taught by Jensen, to properly cover the nose and mouth to prevent contamination, allow the pleats and malleable stiffening member to provide space while conforming the edges to the face, and to allow the nose to be comfortably situated within the concavity of the mask.
Regarding claim 2, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the entirety of the claim (claim 1), except the second malleable stiffening member configured to conform the filter material to at least a chin portion and a jaw portion of the face of the wearer and the bend portion indicating an outer surface of the mask.
However, Jensen further teaches a second malleable stiffening member 54 (figs. 6 and 7 and [0043], malleable stiffener 54 being placed directly next to the lower edge 34), the second malleable stiffening member 54 configured to conform the filter material 22 to at least a chin portion and a jaw portion of the face of the wearer ([0043], the stiffeners are pliant enough to be bent to a shape that conforms to the face of the wearer, and figs. 1 and 2 show the lower edge of the mask, where lower stiffener 54 is located, extending across the chin and jaw; therefore, the malleable stiffener 54 is capable of conforming the filter material 22 to the chin and jaw of the wearer) and the bend portion indicates an outer surface of the mask (fig. 3 shows the upper edge of the mask where the malleable stiffener 52 is having the bend as previously discussed, forming a convex side indicative of the outer surface of the mask).
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 mask of the patent in view of Jensen such that the second malleable stiffening member is configured to conform the filter material to at least a chin portion and a jaw portion of the face of the wearer and the bend portion indicates an outer surface of the mask, to allow the mask to be sealed along the jaw to prevent ingress of contaminated air.
Regarding claim 5, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the entirety of the claim (claim 7).
Regarding claim 6, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the entirety of the claim (claims 1 and 8).
Regarding claim 7, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the entirety of the claim (claim 9).
Regarding claim 8, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Jensen further teaches the at least one pleat 24/26 disposed between the upper, lower and side edges 32/34/36/38 providing a breathing chamber when unfolded (fig. 2 shows the mask in the unfolded, rounded configuration, forming a breathing chamber within the mask), to allow for comfortable breathing.
Regarding claim 10, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Jensen further teaches the malleable stiffening member 52 and second stiffening member 54 comprising aluminum strips ([0044], stiffeners 52/54 may be formed of aluminum, and can be seen in fig. 7 being strips), as aluminum is sturdy but light, making it comfortable to wear.
Regarding claim 11, the patent claims the entirety of the claim (claim 1), except when unfolded the filter material forms a mask configured to cover the nose and mouth of the wearer, the at least one pleat disposed between the upper, lower and side edges and configured to fit over a chin of the wearer and to provide a breathing chamber when unfolded, the first malleable stiffening member configured to conform the filter material to a cheek portion of the face of the wearer, the malleable stiffening member having a bend portion which is bent, creased, folded, or angled away from the inner surface and indicating at least the outer surface and the nose portion of the filter mask, the second malleable stiffening member configured to conform the filter material to at least a chin portion and a jaw portion of the face of the wearer.
However, Jensen teaches a filter mask 20 (fig. 1 and [0031], filter mask 20) comprising: a filter material 22 ([0035], filter material 22) such that when unfolded the filter material 22 forms a mask 20 configured to cover the nose and mouth of the wearer (fig. 1), the at least one pleat 24/26 disposed between the upper, lower, and side edges 32/34/36/38 (fig. 7, the pleats 24/26 being made in the body of the mask within the perimeter formed by the outer edges) and configured to fit over a chin of the wearer and to provide a breathing chamber when unfolded (figs. 1 and 2, the mask capable of fitting over the chin and providing a chamber/space within the mask when the pleats are unfolded); a first malleable stiffening member 52 (figs. 6 and 7 and [0043], malleable stiffener 52 being placed directly next to the upper edge 32), the first malleable stiffening member 52 configured to conform the filter material 22 to at least a nose portion and a cheek portion of the face of the wearer ([0043], the stiffeners are pliant enough to be bent to a shape that conforms to the face of the wearer, and figs. 1 and 2 show the upper edge of the mask, where upper stiffener 52 is located, extending across the nose and cheeks; therefore, the malleable stiffener 52 is capable of conforming the filter material 22 to the nose and cheek of the wearer), the malleable stiffening member 52 having a bend portion, which is bent, creased, folded, or angled away from the inner surface 46 (fig. 3 shows the upper edge of the mask where the malleable stiffener 52 is being bent in a direction away from the inner surface and towards the outer surface of the mask, thus forming a concavity on the inner surface and convexity on the outer surface) and indicating at least the outer surface 42 and the nose portion of the filter mask (fig. 3, the convex side of the bend in the upper edge of the mask being indicative of the outer surface and nose portion/protrusion of the mask); a second malleable stiffening member 54 4 (figs. 6 and 7 and [0043], malleable stiffener 54 being placed directly next to the lower edge 34), the second malleable stiffening member 54 configured to conform the filter material 22 to at least a chin portion and a jaw portion of the face of the wearer ([0043], the stiffeners are pliant enough to be bent to a shape that conforms to the face of the wearer, and figs. 1 and 2 show the lower edge of the mask, where lower stiffener 54 is located, extending across the chin and jaw; therefore, the malleable stiffener 54 is capable of conforming the filter material 22 to the chin and jaw of the wearer).
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 mask of the patent such that when unfolded the filter material forms a mask configured to cover the nose and mouth of the wearer, the at least one pleat disposed between the upper, lower and side edges and configured to fit over a chin of the wearer and to provide a breathing chamber when unfolded, the first malleable stiffening member configured to conform the filter material to a cheek portion of the face of the wearer, the malleable stiffening member having a bend portion which is bent, creased, folded, or angled away from the inner surface and indicating at least the outer surface and the nose portion of the filter mask, the second malleable stiffening member configured to conform the filter material to at least a chin portion and a jaw portion of the face of the wearer, as taught by Jensen, to properly cover the nose and mouth to prevent contamination, allow the pleats and malleable stiffening member to provide space while conforming the edges to the face, and to allow the nose to be comfortably situated within the concavity of the mask.
Regarding claim 14, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the entirety of the claim (claim 7).
Regarding claim 15, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the entirety of the claim (claim 8).
Regarding claim 16, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the entirety of the claim (claim 9).
Claims 9, 17, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,064,651 B2 in view of Jensen US 2005/0133034 A1 further in view of Bowen US 2009/0205666 A1.
Regarding claim 9, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent in view of Jensen is silent on the filter mask comprising at least three pleats.
However, Bowen teaches an analogous filter mask 11 (fig. 4 and [0042], mask material 23 of mask 11 comprises filter media) comprising at least three pleats 13 (fig. 1 and [0033], pleats 13).
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 pleats of the patent in view of Jensen such that there are at least three, as taught by Bowen, for further unfolding capacity to create a larger chamber within the mask.
Regarding claim 17, the patent claims the entirety of the claim (claim 1), except a stack of filter masks comprising: a plurality of filter masks, when unfolded the filter material forms a mask configured to cover the nose and mouth of the wearer, the at least one pleat disposed between the upper and lower edges and configured to fit over a chin of the wearer when unfolded, the malleable stiffening member configured to conform the filter material to a cheek portion, the malleable stiffening member having a bend portion indicating at least the outer surface and the nose portion of the filter mask; and wherein the masks are positioned in a nestled relation to one another, the inner surface of at least one mask being opposed to the outside surface of an adjacent mask, thereby forming a stack.
However, Jensen teaches a filter mask 20 (fig. 1 and [0031], filter mask 20) comprising a filter material 22 ([0035], filter material 22) such that when unfolded the filter material 22 forms a mask 20 configured to cover the nose and mouth of the wearer (fig. 1), the at least one pleat 24/26 disposed between the upper and lower edges 32/34 (fig. 7, the pleats 24/26 being made along the height of the mask between the upper and lower edges 32/34) and configured to fit over a chin of the wearer when unfolded (fig. 1); a malleable stiffening member 52 (figs. 6 and 7 and [0043], malleable stiffener 52 being placed directly next to the upper edge 32), the malleable stiffening member 52 configured to conform the filter material 22 to at least a nose portion and a cheek portion of the face of the wearer ([0043], the stiffeners are pliant enough to be bent to a shape that conforms to the face of the wearer, and figs. 1 and 2 show the upper edge of the mask, where upper stiffener 52 is located, extending across the nose and cheeks; therefore, the malleable stiffener 52 is capable of conforming the filter material 22 to the nose and cheek of the wearer), the malleable stiffening member 52 having a bend portion (fig. 3 shows the upper edge of the mask where the malleable stiffener 52 has a bend forming a concave and convex side) indicating at least the outer surface 42 and the nose portion of the filter mask (fig. 3, the convex side of the bend in the upper edge of the mask being indicative of the outer surface and nose portion/protrusion of the mask).
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 mask of the patent such that when unfolded the filter material forms a mask configured to cover the nose and mouth of the wearer, the at least one pleat disposed between the upper and lower edges and configured to fit over a chin of the wearer when unfolded, the malleable stiffening member configured to conform the filter material to a cheek portion, the malleable stiffening member having a bend portion indicating at least the outer surface and the nose portion of the filter mask, as taught by Jensen, to properly cover the nose and mouth to prevent contamination, allow the pleats and malleable stiffening member to provide space while conforming the edges to the face, and to allow the nose to be comfortably situated within the concavity of the mask.
The patent in view of Jensen is silent on a stack of filter masks comprising: a plurality of filter masks, and wherein the masks are positioned in a nestled relation to one another, the inner surface of at least one mask being opposed to the outside surface of an adjacent mask, thereby forming a stack.
However, Bowen teaches a stack 43 of filter masks 11 (fig. 4 and [0060], face masks 11 may be stacked in stack 43) comprising: a plurality of filter masks 11 (fig. 4 and [0042], mask material 23 of mask 11 comprises filter media); wherein the masks 11 are positioned in a nestled relation to one another (fig. 4 and [0060], stack 43 comprises masks 11 having nose contours 19, which are nested), the inner surface of at least one mask 11 being opposed to the outside surface of an adjacent mask 11, thereby forming a stack 43 (fig. 4 shows the masks 11 laid on top of each other, such that one side (such as the inner surface) of a mask would be opposite the other side (such as the outer surface) of another mask).
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 filter mask of the patent in view of Jensen as a stack of filter masks comprising: a plurality of filter masks; wherein the masks are positioned in a nestled relation to one another, the inner surface of at least one mask being opposed to the outside surface of an adjacent mask, thereby forming a stack, as taught by Bowen, to provide a plurality of masks in a neat and presentable configuration for continued use; further, as Jensen’s mask comprises malleable stiffeners that may take the form of a bend, similar to Bowen’s nose contours, providing the masks in a stacked, nested configuration allows them to be organized neatly.
Regarding claim 18, the patent in view of Jensen further in view of Bowen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Bowen further teaches analogous bend portions 19 of each mask 11 being adapted to maintain a distance between adjacent masks 11 (figs. 4 and 5 shows there being slight spacing between each mask 11), to allow each mask to be individually chosen and removed from the stack.
Claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,064,651 in view of Jensen US 2005/0133034 A1 further in view of Castiglione US 5,558,089.
Regarding claim 3, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the means for securing comprising a pair of ear loops attached to the filter material (claim 5).
Jensen in view of the patent is silent on the bend being by about 1 to 10 degrees or by 1 mm to about 50 mm.
However, Castiglione teaches a face mask 10 (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 7-12) comprising an analogous aluminum nose strip 12 (figs. 1 and 3 and col. 4, lines 55-56) with a bend of about 1 to 10 degrees (fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 33-35, angle gamma formed by a bend in the strip 12 is about 20 degrees, which may be considered about 10 degrees) or by 1 mm to about 50 mm.
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 bend of Jensen in view of the patent to be by about 1 to 10 degrees or by 1 mm to about 50 mm, as taught by Castiglione, as this may provide the most comfortable seal for a particular wearer depending on their facial anatomy.
Regarding claim 4, the patent in view of Jensen further in view of Castiglione discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the ear loops being formed of an elastic material (claim 6).
The patent in view of Jensen is silent on the bend portion being bent by about 1 mm to about 20 mm.
However, Castiglione further teaches the bend portion being bent by about 1 mm to about 20 mm (fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 21-26, distance B formed by a bend in the strip 12 is 10 to 40 mm).
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 bend portion of the patent in view of Jensen further in view of Castiglione to be bent by about 1 mm to about 20 mm, as taught by Castiglione, to provide sufficient length in the side/wing of the strip to securely conform to the side of the nose and cheek.
Regarding claim 12, the patent in view of Jensen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the means for securing comprising a pair of ear loops attached to the filter material (claim 6).
The patent in view of Jensen is silent on the bend portion being bent by about 1 to 10 degrees.
However, Castiglione teaches a face mask 10 (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 7-12) comprising an analogous aluminum nose strip 12 (figs. 1 and 3 and col. 4, lines 55-56) with a bend of about 1 to 10 degrees (fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 33-35, angle gamma formed by a bend in the strip 12 is about 20 degrees, which may be considered about 10 degrees).
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 bend of Jensen in view of the patent to be by about 1 to 10 degrees, as taught by Castiglione, as this may provide the most comfortable seal for a particular wearer depending on their facial anatomy.
Regarding claim 13, the patent in view of Jensen further in view of Castiglione discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent further claims the ear loops being formed of an elastic material (claim 6).
The patent in view of Jensen is silent on the bend portion being bent by about 1 mm to 50 mm.
However, Castiglione further teaches the bend portion being bent by about 1 mm to 50 mm (fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 21-26, distance B formed by a bend in the strip 12 is 10 to 40 mm).
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 bend portion of the patent in view of Jensen further in view of Castiglione to be bent by about 1 mm to 50 mm, as taught by Castiglione, to provide sufficient length in the side/wing of the strip to securely conform to the side of the nose and cheek.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,064,651 B2 in view of Jensen US 2005/0133034 A1 further in view of Bowen US 2009/0205666 A1 and Castiglione US 5,558,089.
Regarding claim 19, the patent in view of Jensen further in view of Bowen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent in view of Jensen further in view of Bowen is silent on the bend portion being bent by about 1 to 10 degrees.
However, Castiglione teaches a face mask 10 (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 7-12) comprising an analogous aluminum nose strip 12 (figs. 1 and 3 and col. 4, lines 55-56) with a bend of about 1 to 10 degrees (fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 33-35, angle gamma formed by a bend in the strip 12 is about 20 degrees, which may be considered about 10 degrees).
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 bend portion of the patent in view of Jensen further in view of Bowen to be bent by about 1 to 10 degrees, as taught by Castiglione, as this may provide the most comfortable seal for a particular wearer depending on their facial anatomy.
Regarding claim 20, the patent in view of Jensen further in view of Bowen discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent in view of Jensen further in view of Bowen is silent on the bend portion being bent by about 35 to 50 mm.
However, Castiglione teaches a face mask 10 (fig. 1 and col. 1, lines 7-12) comprising an analogous aluminum nose strip 12 (figs. 1 and 3 and col. 4, lines 55-56) with a bend of about 35 to 50 mm (fig. 3 and col. 4, lines 21-26, distance B formed by a bend in the strip 12 is 10 to 40 mm).
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 bend portion of the patent in view of Jensen further in view of Bowen to be bent by about 35 to 50 mm, as taught by Castiglione, to provide sufficient length in the side/wing of the strip to securely conform to the side of the nose and cheek.
Conclusion
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