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 § 103
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) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (US11223887) in view of Falco (US6622816).
With respect to claim 1 Webb discloses a preformed facepiece cushion for use with an acoustic mask, the preformed faepiece cushion comprising:
A preformed soft cushion pad (24) which includes a proximal end (outer portion toward user face) a distal end (portion extending into the acoustic mask); a covering (that is to say the outer skin of the foam ); an interior which is filled with
a foam layer (see column 5 lines 25-35);
A top at the proximal end; a bottom at the priomxal end; a pair of sides that extends between the top and bottom (see figure 2 the cushion is so shaped);
And a length that is continuous with the pair of sides and extends between the top and bottom (that is to say the outer circumferential wall of the cushion as is seen in figure 2)
A top depression which curves downward distally from each side along the length of the top (that is the cushion is formed to contour to the face of the user and has a reduced wall portion for at the nose of the user); and a bottom depression which curves downwardly distally from each side along the length on the bottom (that is the reduced portion proximate the chin of the user);
And a flexible lip (32) which is attached to the covering at the distal end of the preformed soft cushion pad.
Wedd does not expressly disclose the cushion member having multiple layers, one of which is gel.
Falco discloses a cushion for allowing a device to be formed to a user’s face which utilizes gels, foams and combinations thereof (column 7 lines 35-60).
It would have been an obvious matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Falco to use gel and foam in the formation of a cushion for a device to be used on a user’s face with the mask of Webb. The motivation for doing so would be to provide for different deformation properties of the materials to maximize user comfort.
It would have been further obvious to provide the materials taught to be used together in such an arrangement as claimed as this would allow for the maximal amount of deformation to accommodate surface irregularities while providing a good seal.
With respect to claim 2 Webb as modified further discloses the invention as claimed except expressly the selection of the durometer as being 45 to 55 on the Shore OO scale. The selection of such a value would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing based upon the properties needed for both sealing and user comfort. The selection would have been found through routine testing. Further it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 3 regarding the selection of the pad weight of 22 grams, this would have been an obvious smatter to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such a weight would be dependent upon the material and the thickness. Both of these parameters would have been obvious to select. Further it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 4 as it regards the depth of the depressions the selection would have been an obvious matter based upon the need to allow for the user’s nose and chin to be properly accommodated, such a depth would be based upon an average so as to accommodate the maximum number of user’s faces. The selection of 10 mm would be the result of routine testing. Further it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 5 Webb as modified further discloses an acoustic mask, the acoustic mask comprising:
An outer housing (10) which terminates in an outer rim (22); and a preformed facepiece cushion (24), which is directly or indirectly mounted on the outer housing, the preformed facepiece cushion comprising:
A preformed soft cushion pad (24) which includes a proximal end (outer portion toward user face) a distal end (portion extending into the acoustic mask); a covering (that is to say the outer skin of the foam ); an interior which is filled with an upper gel layer (gel taught by Falco) and a lower foam layer (foam taught by Falco and Webb both);
A top at the proximal end; a bottom at the priomxal end; a pair of sides that extends between the top and bottom (see figure 2 the cushion is so shaped);
And a length that is continuous with the pair of sides and extends between the top and bottom (that is to say the outer circumferential wall of the cushion as is seen in figure 2)
A top depression which curves downward distally from each side along the length of the top (that is the cushion is formed to contour to the face of the user and has a reduced wall portion for at the nose of the user); and a bottom depression which curves downwardly distally from each side along the length on the bottom (that is the reduced portion proximate the chin of the user);
And a flexible lip (32) which is attached to the covering at the distal end of the preformed soft cushion pad.
With respect to claim 6 Webb as modified further discloses (see Webb column 5) wherein the flexible lip releasable retains the preformed soft cushion pad on the outer rim.
With respect to claim 7 Webb as modified further discloses the invention as claimed except expressly the selection of the durometer as being 45 to 55 on the Shore OO scale. The selection of such a value would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing based upon the properties needed for both sealing and user comfort. The selection would have been found through routine testing. Further it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 8 regarding the selection of the pad weight of 22 grams, this would have been an obvious smatter to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such a weight would be dependent upon the material and the thickness. Both of these parameters would have been obvious to select. Further it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 9 as it regards the depth of the depressions the selection would have been an obvious matter based upon the need to allow for the user’s nose and chin to be properly accommodated, such a depth would be based upon an average so as to accommodate the maximum number of user’s faces. The selection of 10 mm would be the result of routine testing. Further it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 10 Webb as modified further discloses a sleeve (36) which includes a distal end an a priomxal end, extends outwardly from the outer rim and is slidably engaged in the inner housing, wherein the flexible lip releasably retains the preformed soft cushion pad on the proximal end of the sleeve.
With respect to claim 11 Webb as modified further discloses the invention as claimed except expressly the selection of the durometer as being 45 to 55 on the Shore OO scale. The selection of such a value would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing based upon the properties needed for both sealing and user comfort. The selection would have been found through routine testing. Further it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 12 regarding the selection of the pad weight of 22 grams, this would have been an obvious smatter to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such a weight would be dependent upon the material and the thickness. Both of these parameters would have been obvious to select. Further it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 13 as it regards the depth of the depressions the selection would have been an obvious matter based upon the need to allow for the user’s nose and chin to be properly accommodated, such a depth would be based upon an average so as to accommodate the maximum number of user’s faces. The selection of 10 mm would be the result of routine testing. Further it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With respect to claim 14 Webb as modified (column 6 of Webb) further discloses the method of damping sound with an acoustic mask including the steps as claimed.
With respect to claim 15 as it regards the selecting of a sleeve and installing the sleeve, and then the cushion, the elements of Webb as modified are able to be assembled and disassembled, the elements of Webb are further taught to have multiple different functions and capabilities. The selection of elements by a user to meet their needs would have been an obvious matter. It is further considered that given the proximity to the face of the user the device would need to be cleaned. As the device is shown to be able to be disassembled it is the case that from the disassembled state the user would need to reassemble the device for use. There is no structure imparted by the limitations nor is there a step that differs from the routine disassembly and reassembly of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reveron (US12354583) discloses a voice isolation mask; Bush (US11541626) discloses a multilayer multi impedance composite; Webb (USD868723) discloses a cushion and mounting system; Webb (US9912819) discloses an audio capture and surrounding cushion; Almagro (US8243944) discloses a foldable sound insulation device for at the user’s mouth; Byrd (US8136530) discloses a pad for misshaped ears; Sheppard (US6684976) discloses a headset seal; Guille (US3796842) discloses a dictation mask; Beguin (US3114802) discloses a mouthpiece and microphone; and Webb (US2745911) discloses a dictation mask.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FORREST M PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)272-9020. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00-5:00.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 272-3985. 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.
/FORREST M PHILLIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights