DETAILED ACTION
In the preliminary amendment filed 4/3/25, Applicant has amended claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-16 and 19-24. Claims 3, 8, 17 and 18 have been cancelled. Currently, claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-16 and 19-24 are pending.
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 .
Specification
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 language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes legal phraseology (i.e. “comprises”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4, 14, 21 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities which require appropriate correction:
In claim 1 line 2: “a wearer’s nose and mouth” should be “a nose and mouth of a wearer”.
In claim 1 lines 3-4: “the wearer’s face” should be “the face of the wearer”.
In claim 1 lines 6 and 7 (two separate corrections needed): “the wearer’s chin” should be “the chin of the wearer”.
In claim 2 line 2: “the wearer’s nose” should be “the nose of the wearer”.
In claim 2 lines 3,4,5 and 6 (four corrections needed): “the wearer’s chin” should be “the chin of the wearer”.
In claim 4 line 2: “or continuous” should be amended to recite “continuous”.
In claim 14 line 2: “a wearer’s nose and mouth” should be “a nose and mouth of a wearer”.
In claim 14 line 3: “the wearer’s face” should be “the face of the wearer”.
In claim 14 lines 4 and 5 (two separate corrections needed): “the wearer’s chin” should be “the chin of the wearer”.
In claim 14 line 6: “the wearer’s eyes” should be “the eyes of the wearer”.
In claim 21 lines 3 and 6 (two corrections needed): “the wearer’s face” should be “the face of the wearer”.
In claim 23 line 4: “the wearer’s face” should be “the face of the wearer”.
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) 1-2, 4-7, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hulbert et al (US 2021/0353977).
With respect to claim 1, Hulbert discloses a mask (100; fig 1) comprising: a nose cup for covering a wearer's nose and mouth (center spine 112 covers the nose and mouth during use as shown in figs 1-2); and a sealing arrangement (interior sealing frame 180; figs 3, 4a, 4b) configured to provide a seal between the mask and the wearer's face (para [0026]) ,wherein the sealing arrangement comprises a chin portion which is configured to extend over the wearer's chin and an outer surface which is configured to follow the shape of the wearer's chin (the frame 180 includes a face engaging strip 182 that sits flush against the bottom portion of the user's chin and includes an outer surface which is configured to follow the shape of the wearer's chin as shown in figs 4a and 4b).
With respect to claim 2, Hulbert discloses the mask as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and also discloses that the nose cup (112) is configured to extend from the top of the wearer's nose to the top of the wearer's chin (as shown in figs 1-2), and the chin portion (chin portion of frame 180) is configured to extend from the top of the wearer's chin to underneath the wearer's chin (face engaging strip 182 on frame 180 sits flush against the bottom portion of the user's chin, and extends rearward along the lower jawline, and from approximately the position of the user's rear jaw extends upwards curving towards the bridge of the user's nose – thus, the structure extends from the top of the chin near the jawline to beneath the chin; para [0026]) and the chin portion is optionally configured to conform to the shape of the wearer's chin (para [0026]; figs 4a-4b).
With respect to claim 4, Hulbert discloses the mask as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and also discloses that a sealing surface of the chin portion (chin portion of face engaging strip 182 of frame 180; para [0026]) is continuous with a sealing surface of another part of the sealing arrangement (strip 182 forms a continuous sealing strip against the user's face – para [0026] and extends continuously from the chin to the bridge of the nose as shown in figs 4a and 4b).
With respect to claim 5, Hulbert discloses the mask as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and also discloses that the sealing arrangement (180) comprises a protruding portion (mounting strip 184 extends away from strip 182 and thus protrudes from frame 180 as shown in fig 3) which protrudes from the chin portion to the nose cup (strip 184 extends along frame 180 from the chin area to the area configured for placement on the bridge of the nose as shown in fig 3).
With respect to claim 6, Hulbert discloses the mask as claimed (see rejection of claim 5) and also discloses that the protruding portion (184) partially overlaps the chin portion (shown in fig 3) to form a recess (see annotated fig 3).
ANNOTATED FIG 3 of Hulbert:
PNG
media_image1.png
470
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, Hulbert discloses the mask as claimed (see rejection of claim 6) and also discloses that the protruding portion (183) is at least one of resiliently deformable and/or resiliently compressible and resiliently compressible (sealing frame 180 may be formed of a flexible material, such as rubber, and, for example, may be composed of polyurethane or TPE – para [0026]).
With respect to claim 9, Hulbert discloses the mask as claimed (see rejection of claim 6) and also discloses that the protruding portion (184) comprises a bellows portion (the strip 184 is attached to strip 182 such that the two strips define a folded portion as shown in fig 3).
With respect to claim 10, Hulbert discloses the mask as claimed (see rejection of claim 6) and also discloses that the recess is for receiving a chin strap of a helmet (as shown in figs 1-2, the chin strap of the helmet is positioned underneath the chin in the area identified as the recess in annotated fig 3).
With respect to claim 11, Hulbert discloses the mask as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and also discloses that the nose cup (112) is a quarter mask nose cup (the spine 112 fits over just the nose and mouth area and thus is interpreted as being a quarter mask nose cup).
With respect to claim 13, Hulbert discloses the mask as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and also discloses the mask further comprising a filter for filtering air breathed into the mask (filter assemblies 150 – para [0023]; figs 1-2).
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.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulbert et al (US 2021/0353977) in view of Reele et al (US 10960238).
With respect to claim 12, Hulbert discloses the mask as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) but does not disclose the mask further comprising a tab connected to the chin portion for gripping or holding by a user.
Reele, however, teaches a face mask 1 that includes an extension tab 38 extending from the bottom end of the covering 2, wherein the extension tab 38 is configured to provide a grasping point for removing or reseating the face mask 1 (col 8 lines 55-59; see fig 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have added a tab, as taught by Reele, to the chin portion of the mask of Hulbert, in order to provide a grasping point for removing or reseating the face mask and thus assisting with positioning and use of the mask.
Claims 14-16 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulbert et al (US 2021/0353977) in view of Jacob et al (US 2014/0259253).
With respect to claim 14, Hulbert discloses a respirator (10; para [0022]) comprising a mask (mask 100; fig 1) that comprises a nose cup for covering a wearer's nose and mouth (center spine 112 covers the nose and mouth during use as shown in figs 1-2); and a sealing arrangement (interior sealing frame 180; figs 3, 4a, 4b) configured to provide a seal between the mask and the wearer's face (para [0026]) ,wherein the sealing arrangement comprises a chin portion which is configured to extend over the wearer's chin and an outer surface which is configured to follow the shape of the wearer's chin (the frame 180 includes a face engaging strip 182 that sits flush against the bottom portion of the user's chin and includes an outer surface which is configured to follow the shape of the wearer's chin as shown in figs 4a and 4b); and protective goggles (goggles 200; figs 1-2, 4a, 4b, 5; para [0022;0027]) for protecting the wearer's eyes (para [0022]).
Hulbert does not, however, disclose that the protective goggles are detachably connectable to the mask.
Jacob teaches an eye protector and a face protector having at least one fastener for removably attaching the upper edge area of the face protector to the lower edge area of the eye protector wherein the fastener is able to sealably fasten the area between the face protector and the eye protector so that the face area and the eye area are protected from hazards (abstract; para [0007]). Thus, 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 device of Hulbert to include a fastener that detachably connects the protective goggles to the mask, as taught by Jacob, in order to protect the area between the goggles and mask from hazards.
With respect to claim 15, Hulbert in view of Jacob discloses the respirator substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 14) and Jacob further teaches that the protective goggles comprise a first connector and the mask comprises a second connector, wherein the first connector and the second connector are detachably connectable together to detachably connect the protective goggles to the mask (the fastener is one or more magnetized elements positioned at the lower edge of the eye protector and one or more metal elements positioned at the upper edge area of the face protector - para [0007]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have further modified the device of Hulbert so that the protective goggles comprise a first connector and the mask comprises a second connector, wherein the first connector and the second connector are detachably connectable together to detachably connect the protective goggles to the mask, as taught by Jacob, in order to provide selective attachment and removal of the goggles and/or mask and to protect the area between the goggles and mask from hazards.
With respect to claim 16, Hulbert in view of Jacob discloses the respirator substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 15) and Jacob further teaches that one of the first connector and the second connector comprises a hook, the other of the first connector and the second connector comprises a catch for connecting to the hook (para [0008]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have further modified the device of Hulbert so that one of the first connector and the second connector comprises a hook, the other of the first connector and the second connector comprises a catch for connecting to the hook, as taught by Jacob, in order to provide selective attachment and removal of the goggles and/or mask and to protect the area between the goggles and mask from hazards.
With respect to claim 19, Hulbert in view of Jacob discloses the respirator substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 15) and Jacob further teaches that the first connector and the second connector are provided at a nose bridging portion of the protective goggles and the mask, respectively (as shown in figures 1-2, the connectors are located across the top edge of the face protector and the bottom edge of the eye protector, including in the area that will cross over the bridge of the nose during use). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have further modified the device of Hulbert so that the first connector and the second connector are provided at a nose bridging portion of the protective goggles and the mask, as taught by Jacob, in order to protect the area between the goggles and mask from hazards.
With respect to claim 20, Hulbert in view of Jacob discloses the respirator substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 15) and Jacob further teaches that the protective goggles and mask further comprise a magnetic connector configured to provide an additional detachable connection between the protective goggles and mask (the fastener is one or more magnetized elements positioned at the lower edge of the eye protector and one or more metal elements positioned at the upper edge area of the face protector - para [0007]; additional fasteners can be used – para [0038]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have further modified the device of Hulbert so that the protective goggles comprise a magnetic connector configured to provide an additional detachable connection between the protective goggles and mask, as taught by Jacob, in order to provide selective attachment and removal of the goggles and/or mask and to protect the area between the goggles and mask from hazards.
With respect to claim 21, Hulbert in view of Jacob discloses the respirator substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 14) and Hulbert further discloses that the protective goggles (200) comprise a goggle sealing arrangement configured to provide a seal between the protective goggles and the wearer's face (goggles 200 include a rear, face-engaging continuous rim 220 that extends around the full, rear perimeter of goggles 200 to form a continuous seal of goggles 200 against the user's face around their eyes – para [0027]); the mask comprises a mask sealing arrangement (interior sealing frame 180; figs 3, 4a, 4b) configured to provide a seal between the mask and the wearer's face (para [0026]); and the goggle sealing arrangement and the mask sealing arrangement comprise mutually overlapping portions (as shown in figs 4a-4b, the rim of the goggles 200 overlaps with the frame 180 at the areas on the left and right sides of the bridge of the nose).
With respect to claim 22, Hulbert in view of Jacob discloses the respirator substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 21) and Hulbert further discloses that in the mutually overlapping portions, a sealing surface of the goggle sealing arrangement is continuous with a sealing surface of the mask sealing arrangement (as shown in figs 4a-4b, the rim of the goggles 200 overlaps with the frame 180 at the areas on the left and right sides of the bridge of the nose – at those areas, the rim of the goggles and the frame 180 are shown touching and, thus, forms a continuous seal at the contact points).
With respect to claim 23, Hulbert in view of Jacob discloses the respirator substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 21) and Hulbert further discloses that in the mutually overlapping portions, a sealing surface of the goggle sealing arrangement and a sealing surface of the mask sealing arrangement are configured to form a continuous contact line with the wearer's face (as shown in figs 4a-4b, the rim of the goggles 200 overlaps with the frame 180 at the areas on the left and right sides of the bridge of the nose – at those areas, the rim of the goggles and the frame 180 are shown touching and, thus, form a continuous contact line with the user’s face at the contact points between the rim and frame).
With respect to claim 24, Hulbert in view of Jacob discloses the respirator substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 21) and Hulbert further discloses that the mutually overlapping portions are located at nasal bridge regions of the protective goggles and the mask (as shown in figs 4a-4b, the rim of the goggles 200 overlaps with the frame 180 at the areas on the left and right sides of the bridge of the nose).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN CARREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-7234. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at 571-270-5237. 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.
/CAITLIN A CARREIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
