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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on July 06, 2026 & February 24, 2025. Claims 1-18 are pending, claims 4-9 and 13-18 have been withdrawn based on the election/restriction mailed May 06, 2026. Applicant has elected Group I which is drawn to claims 2-3 and 10-12 with claim 1 being generic. Therefore claims 1-3 and 10-12 have been examined below. Claims 4-9 and 13-18 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected Group.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in The Australian Government on August 25, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 24, 2025 has/have been considered by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on July 06, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Newly submitted claims 1-18 filed July 06, 2026 are directed to an invention that is the same as the invention originally filed February 24, 2025 based on the election restriction mailed May 6, 2025.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 4-9 and 13-18 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Therefore claims 1-3 and 10-12 have been examined below.
Specification - Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The applicant is reminded that the abstract should be a statement that meets the range of 50 to 150 words and on a single page. The Applicant has submitted several pages.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 18D does not properly label the two figures. Figure 18D should have a bracket or lead lines connecting the plurality of figures. Applicant should use a bracket or lead lines to indicate how the relationship of components is connected. See: 37 CFR 1.84(h)(1).
The drawings are objected to because Figure 21D does not properly label the two figures. Figure 21D should have a bracket or lead lines connecting the plurality of Figures. Applicant should use a bracket or lead lines to indicate how the relationship of components is connected. See: 37 CFR 1.84(h)(1).
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-2, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent No. US 6,076,196 to Yuusuke Masumoto, (herein after " Masumoto").
As to Claim 1, Masumoto discloses an interfacing structure (frame 1; Masumoto ~ regarding interfacing structure) connected, directly or indirectly, to a lens of eyewear (lens 3; Masumoto), the interfacing structure (frame 1; Masumoto ~ regarding interfacing structure) constructed and arranged to be in opposing relation with the user's face in use (Figures 1 - 4 ~ regarding the interface structure constructed and arranged to be in opposing relation with the user's face in use, base plate 11 & sponge pad 13; Masumoto), the interfacing structure (frame 1; Masumoto ~ regarding interfacing structure) comprising: a compliance portion (holding frame 10; Masumoto ~ regarding interfacing structure comprising a compliance portion/Support flange) comprising a support flange (holding frame 10; Masumoto ~ regarding interfacing structure comprising a compliance portion/Support flange) around a periphery of an eye region of the user's face (Figures 1 - 3; Masumoto), and (holding frame 10; Masumoto ~ regarding interfacing structure comprising a compliance portion/Support flange) a cushion support flange (base plate 11; Masumoto ~ regarding the cushion support flange) extending from the support flange (holding frame 10; Masumoto ~ regarding interfacing structure comprising a compliance portion/Support flange), the support flange (holding frame 10; Masumoto ~ regarding interfacing structure comprising a compliance portion/Support flange) being flexible and resilient (Col. 3 and Lines 16-27; Masumoto teaching “The entire frame 1 is made of flexible vinyl chloride ( any other soft elastic synthetic resins can be used) and gradually becomes thinner from the center towards both sides.”); and a cushion (sponge pad 13; Masumoto ~ regarding a cushion) configured to engage the user's face in use (Figures 1 - 3; Masumoto), the cushion (sponge pad 13; Masumoto ~ regarding a cushion) provided to the cushion support flange (base plate 11; Masumoto ~ regarding the cushion support flange)
As to Claim 2, Masumoto discloses the interfacing structure of claim 1, wherein the cushion (sponge pad 13; Masumoto ~ regarding a cushion) is made of foam (sponge pad 13, col. 3, line 19. Examiner notes that a sponge pad is considered a type of foam as both are cellular material with gas dispersed within a solid or liquid medium.).
As to Claim 10, Masumoto discloses the interfacing structure of claim 1,
wherein the support flange (holding frame 10; Masumoto ~ regarding interfacing structure comprising a compliance portion/Support flange) comprises a plurality of vents (ventilation parts 12a & 12b; Masumoto ~ regarding vents), (Col. 3 and Lines 38-54; Masumoto) and wherein the compliance portion (holding frame 10; Masumoto ~ regarding interfacing structure comprising a compliance portion/Support flange) further comprises a cover portion (sponge strips 14a; Masumoto ~ regarding a cover portion) provided to radially outward surfaces of the support flange (holding frame 10; Masumoto ~ regarding interfacing structure comprising a compliance portion/Support flange), covering the plurality of vents (ventilation parts 12a & 12b; Masumoto ~ regarding vents)(Figure 1; Masumoto).
As to Claim 12, Masumoto discloses the interfacing structure (frame 1; Masumoto ~ regarding interfacing structure) of claim 10, wherein the cover portion (sponge strips 14a; Masumoto ~ regarding a cover portion) extends between an anterior position, over the radially outward surfaces of the support flange (holding frame 10; Masumoto ~ regarding interfacing structure comprising a compliance portion/Support flange) (Examiner notes that the online Merriam Webster dictionary defines anterior as situated near or toward the head or part mostly nearly corresponding to a head) (Figure 1; Masumoto), and a radially outward portion of the cushion support flange (base plate 11; Masumoto ~ regarding the cushion support flange), such that a gap is provided between the cover portion (sponge strips 14a; Masumoto ~ regarding a cover portion) and the radially outward surfaces of the support flange (holding frame 10; Masumoto ~ regarding interfacing structure comprising a compliance portion/Support flange).
PNG
media_image1.png
722
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. US 6,076,196 to Yuusuke Masumoto, (herein after " Masumoto"), as to claim 2 above and in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0030987 A1 to Henry et al. (herein after "Henry”).
As to Claim 3, Masumoto discloses the interfacing structure of claim 2, wherein the cushion (sponge pad 13; Masumoto ~ regarding a cushion) but fails to disclose comprising a textile cover layer over the foam.
Henry teaches delivery of respiratory therapy and discloses comprising a textile cover layer over the foam (Paragraph 0214; Henry~ “It should also be appreciated that the under-the-nose interface may be constructed of other suitable material types and configurations, e.g., textile covered foam, textile, textile strata, silicone (e.g., dual wall silicone under-the-nose interface with membrane and under cushion), silicone foam.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cushion of Masumoto, to include comprising a textile cover layer over the foam, as taught by Henry, which would be the simple substitution of one known cushion material for another with the reasonable expectation that one cushion material would work equally as well as another for providing optimized comfort for the wearer.
This would simply be the substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See: MPEP 2143.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. US 6,076,196 to Yuusuke Masumoto, (herein after " Masumoto"), as to claim 10 above and in view of United States Patent No. US 5,425,380 to Hudson et al. (herein after "Hudson”).
As to Claim 11, Masumoto discloses the interfacing structure (frame 1; Masumoto ~ regarding interfacing structure) of claim 10, wherein the cover portion (sponge strips 14a; Masumoto ~ regarding a cover portion) but fails to disclose being hydrophobic.
Hudson teaches eye masks and discloses being hydrophobic, (Col. 2 and Lines 32-46; Hudson).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cover of Masumoto, to include being hydrophobic, as taught by Hudson, which would be the simple substitution of one known cushion material for another with the reasonable expectation that one cushion material would work equally as well as another for providing optimized comfort for the wearer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and can be found in PTO-892 for submitted herewith. The cited prior art reference to Hsu (US 20180095497 A1) is of particular relevance to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKWOKWO REDHEAD whose telephone number is (571)272-7581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM to 4:00pm EST.
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 571-272-5559. 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.
/AKWOKWO OLABISI REDHEAD/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights