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 .
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.
Claim 14 and 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.
Claim 14 and 20 recite the limitation "the interior layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “the interior antimicrobial layer”.
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) 1-3, 5, 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (KR102188301, machine translation accessed 9/25/2026 relied upon herein), hereafter Park.
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses a face mask (Fig. 1) comprising: an interior antimicrobial layer (Fig. 1, inner skin 11) and an exterior antimicrobial layer (Fig. 1, outer skin 15; par. 0086, “If necessary, at least one of the inner layer (11) and the outer layer (15) of the present invention is coated to exhibit water-repellent/oil-repellent/antibacterial/droplet-blocking performance”; layers 11 and 15 can have antibacterial coating); and a triboelectric nanogenerator (TENG) membrane (Fig. 1, microcurrent generating part 13, par. 0056, “The microcurrent generating unit (13) has a structure in which a metal pattern is formed on a support to generate a potential difference and triboelectricity.”) located between the interior and exterior antimicrobial layers (Fig. 1, TENG membrane 13 is between interior and exterior layers 11 and 15), wherein the TENG membrane comprises two different flexible layers having distinct triboelectric polarities (Fig. 3, 13b and 13c, par. 0066, “FIG. 3 is a drawing for explaining a microcurrent generating unit (13) of a double sheet structure according to another embodiment of the present invention”; par. 0076, “thereby the first and second metal patterns (27b, 27c) formed in the first sheet (13b) and second sheet (13c) act as a positive and negative electrode, respectively, generating a microcurrent due to the potential difference.”; par. 0068 discloses the TENG membrane is made out of flexible materials such as nylon and cotton).
Regarding Claim 2, Park discloses the face mask of claim 1, wherein at least one layer of the TENG membrane comprises a porous mesh fabric (Fig. 3, par. 0068, “The first support (25b) and the second support (25c) may be made of the same or different materials and may be synthetic fibers such as cotton, nonwoven fabric, polyester, polypropylene, nylon, or polyurethane used in the inner skin (11) and outer skin (15)”, cotton and nylon are porous mesh fabric).
Regarding Claim 3, Park discloses the face mask of claim 1, wherein the exterior antimicrobial layer comprises copper (par. 0086-0089, “If necessary, at least one of the inner layer (11) and the outer layer (15) of the present invention is coated… the coating layer applied to the inner skin (11) and outer skin (15) penetrates not only to their surfaces but also into the interior along the pores”; par. 0139-0142, “The coating layer comprising the aforementioned polymer having water-repellent/oil-repellent properties further comprises an antimicrobial agent for various purposes… copper nanoparticles, as well as zeolites, calcium phosphate, zirconium phosphate, and silica gel, can be used as inorganic antimicrobial agents.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Park discloses the face mask of claim 1, wherein the interior antimicrobial layer comprises silver (par. 0086-0089, “If necessary, at least one of the inner layer (11) and the outer layer (15) of the present invention is coated… the coating layer applied to the inner skin (11) and outer skin (15) penetrates not only to their surfaces but also into the interior along the pores”; par. 0139-0142, “The coating layer comprising the aforementioned polymer having water-repellent/oil-repellent properties further comprises an antimicrobial agent for various purposes… Nanoparticles such as platinum nanoparticles, silver nanoparticles…”).
Regarding Claim 7, Park discloses the face mask of claim 1, wherein the TENG membrane comprises a nylon fabric and a fabric selected from the group consisting of polyester, polytetrafluoroethylene, polydimethylsiloxane, polyvinyl chloride, polyimide, polypropylene, polyethylene and polyvinylidene fluoride (Fig. 3, par. 0068, “The first support (25b) and the second support (25c) may be made of the same or different materials and may be synthetic fibers such as cotton, nonwoven fabric, polyester, polypropylene, nylon, or polyurethane used in the inner skin (11) and outer skin (15).”; the prior art discloses the two layers in the TENG membrane can be made of nylon and polyester).
Regarding Claim 8, Park discloses the face mask of claim 1, wherein the TENG membrane comprises a nylon fabric and at least one of a polyester fabric or a polytetrafluoroethylene fabric (Fig. 3, par. 0068, “The first support (25b) and the second support (25c) may be made of the same or different materials and may be synthetic fibers such as cotton, nonwoven fabric, polyester, polypropylene, nylon, or polyurethane used in the inner skin (11) and outer skin (15).”; the prior art discloses the two layers in the TENG membrane can be made of nylon and polyester).
Regarding Claim 9, Park discloses the face mask of claim 1, further comprising at least one of two ear loops and a behind-the-head extension loop (Fig. 1, fixing member 2, par. 0052, “The fixing member (2) can be selected from two hanging loops (loop straps) that are hung on the ears, for example, as shown in FIG. 1. The fixing member (2) can be selected from other examples, such as a detachable band that wraps around the back of the head and is detachable and attachable.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Park discloses the face mask of claim 1, further comprising an embedded wire stiffener to secure the face mask at the nose when worn (Fig. 1, wire band 3, par. 0053, “If necessary, the mask may further be provided with a wire band (3) on the upper side of the mask body (1) so that it can be more closely fitted to the face according to the shape of the nose.”).
Regarding Claim 11, Park discloses the face mask of claim 1, wherein the TENG membrane comprises two different porous mesh fabrics that have distinct triboelectric polarities (par. 0067-0069, “Specifically, the first sheet (13b) of the microcurrent generating part (13) has a first metal pattern (27b) formed on the first support (25b), and the second sheet (13c) has a second metal pattern (27c) formed on the second support (25c). The first support (25b) and the second support (25c) may be made of the same or different materials and may be synthetic fibers such as cotton, nonwoven fabric, polyester, polypropylene, nylon, or polyurethane used in the inner skin (11) and outer skin (15). The first metal pattern (27b) and the second metal pattern (27c) may be different metals that have a potential difference and can generate static electricity by friction, and may be one selected from Al, Zn, Fe, Ni, Sn, Cu, Hg, Ag, Pt, Au and alloys thereof.”; The two layers of TENG membrane 13b and 13c are porous mesh fabrics with potential differences to generate static electricity by friction).
Regarding Claim 12, Park discloses the face mask of claim 11, wherein the two different porous mesh fabrics of the TENG membrane are adjacent to one another (par. 0069, “The first metal pattern (27b) and the second metal pattern (27c) may be different metals that have a potential difference and can generate static electricity by friction, and may be one selected from Al, Zn, Fe, Ni, Sn, Cu, Hg, Ag, Pt, Au and alloys thereof.”; Fig. 1, 3, 5 shows the two layers 13b, 13c are adjacent to define the TENG membrane 13, furthermore, in order to generate friction, the two layers are inherently adjacent).
Regarding Claim 13, Park discloses the face mask of claim 11, wherein the two different porous mesh fabrics of the TENG membrane are adjacent to one another and close enough such that they are configured to touch when the wearer breathes (Fig. 5 shows movement of the TENG membrane when user is breathing, Fig. 1 and 3 shows the two mesh fabrics are adjacent, see par. 0069, par. 76, “Looking at Fig. 4, moisture, i.e., water, exists in the microcurrent generating part (13), which is the internal area of the mask body (11), due to the user's breathing…. respectively, generating a microcurrent due to the potential difference.”).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Kagata (JP2012148239, machine translation accessed 9/25/2026 relied upon herein), hereafter Kagata.
Regarding Claim 4, Park discloses the face mask of claim 3, wherein the exterior antimicrobial layer comprises copper and polyester (par. 0050, “The materials of the inner lining (11) and the outer lining (15) may be the same or different from each other, and may be made of materials such as cotton, non-woven fabric, synthetic fibers such as polyester”; par. 0139-0142, “…copper nanoparticles, as well as zeolites, calcium phosphate, zirconium phosphate, and silica gel, can be used as inorganic antimicrobial agents.”), but does not specifically disclose a sputtered copper polyester fabric.
However, Kagata teaches an antimicrobial filter (par. 0001), comprising of a sputtered copper polyester fabric (par. 0031, “A resin fiber mesh (porosity 72%) made of polyester fibers with a wire diameter of 55 μm was dried and then set in the chamber of a sputtering apparatus… copper sputtering was performed on one side of the resin fiber mesh to deposit a first layer of copper at a density of 10 μg/cm.”). The courts have held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the know face mask of Park and use sputtered copper polyester fabric for the antimicrobial layer as taught by Kagata.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Kim (US20100316693), hereafter Kim.
Regarding Claim 6, Park discloses the face mask of claim 5, wherein the interior antimicrobial layer can comprise silver and cotton (par. 0050, “The materials of the inner lining (11) and the outer lining (15) may be the same or different from each other, and may be made of materials such as cotton, non-woven fabric, synthetic fibers such as polyester”; par. 0142, “Nanoparticles such as platinum nanoparticles, silver nanoparticles”), but does not specifically disclose a silver-infused cotton fabric.
However, Kim teaches a silver-infused cotton fabric with antimicrobial properties (Abstract, “introducing silver ions (Ag.sup.+) into a natural cellulose matrix… by drying the silver ion-infused natural cellulose matrix, thus to form a natural cotton-AgO complex”; par. 012, “an antimicrobial cotton of natural cellulose matrix having bonded silver”). The courts have held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the know face mask of Park and use silver-infused cotton fabric for the antimicrobial layer as taught by Kim.
Claim(s) 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Daus et al. (US20210370218), hereafter Daus.
Regarding Claim 14, Park discloses the face mask of claim 1, but is silent on further comprising a breathable non-woven layer made from synthetic material and located between the interior layer and the TENG membrane.
However, Daus teaches a filter assembly (Abstract), for a face mask (par. 0176, “The filter media and filter elements described herein may be suitable for a variety of applications. These include cabin air, face mask…”), comprising of an interior layer (Fig. 3, par. 0024, “For instance, in some embodiments, a filter media comprises a nanofiber layer positioned between a scrim and a prefilter (e.g., directly between a scrim and a prefilter)”; a scrim as disclosed is an interior layer), a TENG membrane (par. 0149, “a prefilter is triboelectrically charged”), a breathable non-woven layer (par. 0086, “When present, a nanofiber layer may have a variety of suitable morphologies. In some embodiments, a nanofiber layer is a non-woven fiber web….”) made from synthetic material (par. 0087, “The fibers present in the nanofiber layer may be of a variety of suitable types. In some embodiments, a nanofiber layer includes fibers comprising one or more of: poly(ether)-b-poly(amide), poly(sulfone), poly(amide)s (e.g., nylons, such as nylon 6), poly(ester)s (e.g., poly(caprolactone)…”; the disclosed materials are synthetic material) and located between the interior layer and the TENG membrane (par. 0024, “For instance, in some embodiments, a filter media comprises a nanofiber layer positioned between a scrim and a prefilter (e.g., directly between a scrim and a prefilter)”; the breathable non-woven nanofiber layer is between the interior scrim layer and the triboelectrically charged prefilter membrane). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known face mask of Park, with the breathable non-woven layer made from synthetic material of Daus, for removing small particulate contaminants to a high degree as taught by Daus, (Daus, par. 0017).
Regarding Claim 15, the modified Park discloses the face mask of claim 14, wherein the breathable non-woven layer is made from a thermoplastic polymer (par. 0087, “The fibers present in the nanofiber layer may be of a variety of suitable types. In some embodiments, a nanofiber layer includes fibers comprising one or more of: poly(ether)-b-poly(amide), poly(sulfone), poly(amide)s (e.g., nylons, such as nylon 6), poly(ester)s (e.g., poly(caprolactone)…”; the disclosed materials such as nylon and polyester are thermoplastic polymer).
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Kagata, further in view of Kim.
Regarding Claim 16, Park discloses a face mask (Fig. 1) comprising: an interior antimicrobial layer (Fig. 1, inner skin 11); an exterior antimicrobial layer (Fig. 1, outer skin 15; par. 0086, “If necessary, at least one of the inner layer (11) and the outer layer (15) of the present invention is coated to exhibit water-repellent/oil-repellent/antibacterial/droplet-blocking performance”; layers 11 and 15 can have antibacterial coating); and a triboelectric nanogenerator (TENG) membrane (Fig. 1, microcurrent generating part 13, par. 0056, “The microcurrent generating unit (13) has a structure in which a metal pattern is formed on a support to generate a potential difference and triboelectricity.”) located between the interior and exterior antimicrobial layers (Fig. 1, TENG membrane 13 is between interior and exterior layers 11 and 15), wherein the TENG membrane comprises separate nylon-based and polyester-based or polytetrafluoroethylene-based porous mesh fabrics (Fig. 3, par. 0068, “The first support (25b) and the second support (25c) may be made of the same or different materials and may be synthetic fibers such as cotton, nonwoven fabric, polyester, polypropylene, nylon, or polyurethane used in the inner skin (11) and outer skin (15).”; the prior art discloses the two layers in the TENG membrane can be made of nylon and polyester).
Park further discloses the interior antimicrobial layer can comprise silver and cotton (par. 0050, “The materials of the inner lining (11) and the outer lining (15) may be the same or different from each other, and may be made of materials such as cotton, non-woven fabric, synthetic fibers such as polyester”; par. 0142, “Nanoparticles such as platinum nanoparticles, silver nanoparticles”), but does not specifically disclose the interior antimicrobial layer is made of silver-infused cotton fabric.
However, Kim teaches a silver-infused cotton fabric with antimicrobial properties (Abstract, “introducing silver ions (Ag.sup.+) into a natural cellulose matrix… by drying the silver ion-infused natural cellulose matrix, thus to form a natural cotton-AgO complex”; par. 012, “an antimicrobial cotton of natural cellulose matrix having bonded silver”). The courts have held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the know face mask of Park and use silver-infused cotton fabric for the antimicrobial layer as taught by Kim.
The modified Park further discloses the exterior antimicrobial layer comprises copper and polyester (par. 0050, “The materials of the inner lining (11) and the outer lining (15) may be the same or different from each other, and may be made of materials such as cotton, non-woven fabric, synthetic fibers such as polyester”; par. 0139-0142, “…copper nanoparticles, as well as zeolites, calcium phosphate, zirconium phosphate, and silica gel, can be used as inorganic antimicrobial agents.”), but does not specifically disclose the exterior antimicrobial layer is made of sputtered copper polyester fabric
However, Kagata teaches an antimicrobial filter (par. 0001), comprising of a sputtered copper polyester fabric (par. 0031, “A resin fiber mesh (porosity 72%) made of polyester fibers with a wire diameter of 55 μm was dried and then set in the chamber of a sputtering apparatus… copper sputtering was performed on one side of the resin fiber mesh to deposit a first layer of copper at a density of 10 μg/cm.”). The courts have held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the know face mask of Park and use sputtered copper polyester fabric for the antimicrobial layer as taught by Kagata.
Regarding Claim 17, the modified Park discloses the face mask of claim 16, further comprising at least one of two ear loops and a behind-the-head extension loop (Park, Fig. 1, fixing member 2, par. 0052, “The fixing member (2) can be selected from two hanging loops (loop straps) that are hung on the ears, for example, as shown in FIG. 1. The fixing member (2) can be selected from other examples, such as a detachable band that wraps around the back of the head and is detachable and attachable.”), and an embedded wire stiffener to secure the face mask at the nose when worn (Park, Fig. 1, wire band 3, par. 0053, “If necessary, the mask may further be provided with a wire band (3) on the upper side of the mask body (1) so that it can be more closely fitted to the face according to the shape of the nose.”).
Regarding Claim 18, the modified Park discloses the face mask of claim 16, wherein the two separate porous mesh fabrics of the TENG membrane are adjacent to one another (Park, par. 0069, “The first metal pattern (27b) and the second metal pattern (27c) may be different metals that have a potential difference and can generate static electricity by friction, and may be one selected from Al, Zn, Fe, Ni, Sn, Cu, Hg, Ag, Pt, Au and alloys thereof.”; Fig. 1, 3, 5 shows the two layers 13b, 13c are adjacent to define the TENG membrane 13, furthermore, in order to generate friction, the two layers are inherently adjacent).
Regarding Claim 19, the modified Park discloses the face mask of claim 16, wherein the two separate porous mesh fabrics of the TENG membrane are adjacent to one another and close enough such that they are configured to touch when the wearer breathes (Park, Fig. 5 shows movement of the TENG membrane when user is breathing, Fig. 1 and 3 shows the two mesh fabrics are adjacent, see par. 0069, par. 76, “Looking at Fig. 4, moisture, i.e., water, exists in the microcurrent generating part (13), which is the internal area of the mask body (11), due to the user's breathing…. respectively, generating a microcurrent due to the potential difference.”).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Kagata, further in view of Kim, further in view of Daus.
Regarding Claim 20, the modified Park discloses the face mask of claim 16, but is silent on further comprising a breathable non-woven layer made from synthetic material and located between the interior layer and the TENG membrane.
However, Daus teaches a filter assembly (Abstract), for a face mask (par. 0176, “The filter media and filter elements described herein may be suitable for a variety of applications. These include cabin air, face mask…”), comprising of an interior layer (Fig. 3, par. 0024, “For instance, in some embodiments, a filter media comprises a nanofiber layer positioned between a scrim and a prefilter (e.g., directly between a scrim and a prefilter)”; a scrim as disclosed is an interior layer), a TENG membrane (par. 0149, “a prefilter is triboelectrically charged”), a breathable non-woven layer (par. 0086, “When present, a nanofiber layer may have a variety of suitable morphologies. In some embodiments, a nanofiber layer is a non-woven fiber web….”) made from synthetic material (par. 0087, “The fibers present in the nanofiber layer may be of a variety of suitable types. In some embodiments, a nanofiber layer includes fibers comprising one or more of: poly(ether)-b-poly(amide), poly(sulfone), poly(amide)s (e.g., nylons, such as nylon 6), poly(ester)s (e.g., poly(caprolactone)…”; the disclosed materials are synthetic material) and located between the interior layer and the TENG membrane (par. 0024, “For instance, in some embodiments, a filter media comprises a nanofiber layer positioned between a scrim and a prefilter (e.g., directly between a scrim and a prefilter)”; the breathable non-woven nanofiber layer is between the interior scrim layer and the triboelectrically charged prefilter membrane). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known face mask of Park, with the breathable non-woven layer made from synthetic material of Daus, for removing small particulate contaminants to a high degree as taught by Daus, (Daus, par. 0017).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN109316679 discloses a face mask comprising of an interior layer, exterior layer, and a triboelectric nanogenerator in between, wherein the triboelectric nanogenerator comprises two different layers having distinct triboelectric (Fig. 1A, par. 0021).
US20210368890 discloses a face mask comprising of an interior and exterior antimicrobial layers, wherein the antimicrobial layers can comprise silver or copper (par. 0039).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRIS HANYU GONG whose telephone number is (703)756-5898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/KRIS HANYU GONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
