Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “15a” has been used to designate both a first region of the viewing window and the first region of the waterproof skirt (para 0040, 0041). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiue (US 2012/0047615). The device of Shiue teaches,
With respect to claim 1,
A water sports mask (20), comprising: a viewing window portion (211);
a frame portion(21);
a waterproof skirt (22) having a first region (area attached to frame 21) and a second region (distal end region), wherein a portion of the first region and the viewing window portion are water-tightly embedded in the frame portion (para 0006), and when a user wears the water sports mask, a rear edge of the second region is configured to fit a face of the user (Figures 2 and 5);
characterized in that: at least one groove (221, 521) is formed between the first region and the second region of the waterproof skirt to substantially increase a degree of flexible deformation of the waterproof skirt so that the rear edge is configured to be more suitably fit along a contour of the face of the user, it is noted “to substantially increase a degree of flexible deformation of the waterproof skirt so that the rear edge is configured to be more suitably fit along a contour of the face of the user” is functional language. The prior art teaches a flexible skirt with grooves and would increase the flexibility of the skirt in the manner recited, therefore meeting the functional recitation of increase a degree of flexible deformation of the waterproof skirt so that the rear edge is configured to be more suitably fit along a contour of the face of the user as claimed, see MPEP 2114;
and the at least one groove (221, 521) has at least two of a width, a depth and an outer angle (Figure 2, 3,5), in which the width ranges between 1.5 and 25 (mm) (para 0026), the depth ranges between 2 and 30 mm, and the outer angle ranges between 5 and 180 degrees. The device off Shiue is silent with respect to the depth and outer angle.
The device of Shiue teaches a width of the at least one groove, and shows that the at least one groove has a depth and a angle that appears to be approximately 90 degrees but does not disclose the exact size of the depth or angle. , it has been cited by legal precedent in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984),cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The device claimed by the applicant would not perform differently than the prior art device of Shiue and is therefore not patentably distinct.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the dimensions recited, such that the depth ranges between 2 and 30 mm, and the outer angle ranges between 5 and 180 degrees in order to provide improved flexibility, stretch and fit to accommodate different size users (para 0010).
With respect to claim 2, wherein the first region of the waterproof skirt has an upper frame section (top side) and a lower covering section (lower side, near 23), and the frame portion (21) is integrally formed by being extended from the upper frame section to allow the viewing window portion to be water-tightly embedded in the frame portion (Figure 2), whereby when the user wears the water sports mask, the viewing window portion is configured to cover eyes of the user, and the lower covering section is configured cover a nose of the user. It is noted that the language “whereby when the user wears the water sports mask, the viewing window portion is configured to cover eyes of the user, and the lower covering section is configured cover a nose of the user” is a functional recitation. The prior art teaches a mask when worn has a window viewing portion that is configured to over the eyes of the user (figure 2) and a lower covering (23) for covering the nose (Figure 2).
With respect to claim 3, wherein the waterproof skirt is formed with a plurality of grooves (221, 521) circumferentially positioned on an outer edge of the frame portion (Figures 2 and 5).
With respect to claim 4, the width, the depth and the outer angle of each of the grooves range between 2 and 10 mm (para 0026), between 5 and 15 mm, and between 5 and 100 degrees, respectively. The device of Shiue teaches a width of the at least one groove, and shows that the at least one groove has a depth and ann angle that appears to be approximately 90 degrees but does not disclose the exact size of the depth or angle. , it has been cited by legal precedent in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984),cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The device claimed by the applicant would not perform differently than the prior art device of Shiue and is therefore not patentably distinct.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the dimensions recited, such that the depth ranges between 5 and 15mm, and the outer angle ranges between 5 and 100 degrees in order to provide improved flexibility, stretch and fit to accommodate different size users (para 0010).
With respect to claim 5, wherein the first region of the waterproof skirt (22) has an upper frame section (21), and a lower covering section (23), and the upper frame section (21) and the viewing window portion (211) are water-tightly embedded in the frame portion (para 0006), whereby when the user wears the water sports mask, the viewing window portion is configured to cover eyes of the user, and the lower covering section is configured to cover a nose of the user (para 0006).
With respect to claim 6, wherein the waterproof skirt (22) is formed with one groove (221, 521) positioned on an upper side thereof. It is noted that the claim recites ‘comprising’ language and does not limit the presence of additional grooves as currently recited.
With respect to claim 7, wherein the width, the depth and the outer angle of the groove range between 5 and 20 mm, between 3 and 15 mm, and between 5 and 100 degrees, respectively. The device of Shiue teaches a width of the at least one groove, and shows that the at least one groove has a depth and an angle that appears to be approximately 90 degrees but does not disclose the exact size claimed of the width, depth or angle. It has been cited by legal precedent in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984),cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The device claimed by the applicant would not perform differently than the prior art device of Shiue and is therefore not patentably distinct.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the dimensions recited, such that the width has range of 5-20mmm, depth ranges between 3 and 15mm, and the outer angle ranges between 5 and 100 degrees in order to provide improved flexibility, stretch and fit to accommodate different size users (para 0010).
With respect to claim 8, wherein the first region of the waterproof skirt has an upper frame section (21) and a lower covering section 923) , and the upper frame section (21) and the viewing window (211) portion are water-tightly embedded in the frame portion (para 0006), whereby when the user wears the water sports mask, the viewing window portion is configured to cover eyes of the user, and the lower covering section is configured to cover a nose and a mouth of the user. It is noted that the language “whereby when the user wears the water sports mask, the viewing window portion is configured to cover eyes of the user, and the lower covering section is configured to cover a nose and a mouth of the user”, the prior art teaches a skirt that is capable for use in covering at least a portion of a eyes nose and mouth of a user, and therefore meets the intended use recitation, as recited. It is noted that the position of the mask on a human user would depend on the size/shape/anatomy of the human. See MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 9, wherein the waterproof skirt (22) is formed with two grooves (221, 521) positioned on two opposite sides thereof, respectively (Figures 2 and 5).
With respect to claim 10, wherein the width, the depth and the outer angle of each of the grooves range between 3 and 10 mm, between 5 and 20 mm, and between 15 and 120 degrees, respectively. The device of Shiue teaches a width of the at least one groove, and shows that the at least one groove has a depth and an angle that appears to be approximately 90 degrees but does not disclose the exact size claimed of the width, depth or angle. It has been cited by legal precedent in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984),cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The device claimed by the applicant would not perform differently than the prior art device of Shiue and is therefore not patentably distinct.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the dimensions recited, wherein the width, the depth and the outer angle of each of the grooves range between 3 and 10 mm, between 5 and 20 mm, and between 15 and 120 degrees, respectively in order to provide improved flexibility, stretch and fit to accommodate different size users (para 0010).
With respect to claim 11, wherein the first region (22) of the waterproof skirt and the viewing window (211) portion are water-tightly embedded in the frame portion (para 0006), whereby when the user wears the water sports mask, the viewing window portion is configured to cover eyes, a nose and a mouth of the user. It is noted that the language “whereby when the user wears the water sports mask, the viewing window portion is configured to cover eyes of the user, and the lower covering section is configured to cover a nose and a mouth of the user”, the prior art teaches a skirt that is capable for use in covering at least a portion of a eyes nose and mouth of a user, and therefore meets the intended use recitation, as recited. It is noted that the position of the mask on a human user would depend on the size/shape/anatomy of the human. See MPEP 2114.
With respect to claim 12, wherein the waterproof skirt is formed with one groove positioned on a lower side thereof (Figures 2 and 5, see side areas of the skirt forming at least a portion of a lower section).
With respect to claim 13, wherein the width, the depth and the outer angle of the groove range between 2 and 10 mm, between 10 and 25 mm, and between 30 and 180 degrees, respectively. The device of Shiue teaches a width of the at least one groove, and shows that the at least one groove has a depth and an angle that appears to be approximately 90 degrees but does not disclose the exact size claimed of the width, depth or angle. It has been cited by legal precedent in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984),cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. The device claimed by the applicant would not perform differently than the prior art device of Shiue and is therefore not patentably distinct.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilize the dimensions recited, wherein the width, the depth and the outer angle of each of the grooves range between 2 and 10 mm, between 10 and 25 mm, and between 30 and 180 degrees, respectively in order to provide improved flexibility, stretch and fit to accommodate different size users (para 0010).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892
Please Note, the art of recorded cited in the PTO-892 may be relevant to the features of the invention both claimed and unclaimed or are relevant to the overall inventive concept. The best art has been set forward in the office action, as determined by the examiner and the art references provided are to establish other significant and relevant art and to promote compact prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHALE L QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-8689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am -5pm.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 5712725559. 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.
RICHALE LEE. QUINN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3765
/RICHALE L QUINN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
