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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species B (figures 6-7D) in the response filed 7/14/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ribs (claims 8, 19) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Examiner notes that there are structures on the figures (specifically, figure 7B) that could potentially be depicting this feature, but it is not specifically labeled (i.e., with a reference number and lead line specifically pointing out the location of the ribs) on any drawings currently. No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 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 phrases which can be implied, specifically “an assembly is provided”. 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).
Specification - Disclosure
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification does not have proper antecedent basis for the following limitations: “ribs that are approximately parallel to one another” (claim 19) and “the face mask includes a body portion that includes the venting pathways, wherein the body portion does not include an opening through which the gases exhaled by the wearer flow” (claim 20).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, 14, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “a face shield removably attachable with the adapter of the face mask” should likely be “a face shield removably attachable to the adapter of the face mask”.
Regarding claim 9, “a face shield removably attachable with the face mask” should likely be “a face shield removably attachable to the face mask”.
Regarding claim 14, “the connector provide a friction fit” should likely be “the connector provides a friction fit”.
Regarding claim 16, “a face shield removably attachable with the face mask” should likely be “a face shield removably attachable to the face mask”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 16, 19 (and claims 2-8, 10-15, and 20 at least for depending on a rejected base claim) 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “the at least one attachment element configured to selectively engage a surgical mask covering a nose and mouth of the wearer”. This limitation is unclear because the “configured to” language does not positively recite the surgical mask, so it is unclear whether a surgical mask or the specific positioning of the surgical mask is required. For the purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation does not require the surgical mask as it is not positively recited by the claim and therefore the alleged position of the surgical mask is also not required.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the limitation “the attachment elements selectively engageable with the surgical mask when covering the nose of the wearer”. This limitation is unclear because it is not clear what structure specifically is supposed to be covering the nose of the wearer.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation “the at least one attachment element configured to selectively engage a surgical mask covering a nose and a mouth of the wearer”. This limitation is unclear because the “configured to” language does not positively recite the surgical mask, so it is unclear whether a surgical mask or the specific positioning of the surgical mask is required. For the purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation does not require the surgical mask as it is not positively recited by the claim and therefore the alleged position of the surgical mask is also not required.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the limitation “approximately parallel”. This limitation is unclear because it is not clear how close to parallel the ribs need to be in order to be considered “approximately” parallel. The specification also does not provide a clear definition for the term.
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) 1-4, 9-14, 16, 18, 20, as best as can be understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De La Guardia (US 2021/0298387).
Regarding claim 1, De La Guardia discloses: A system comprising: a face mask (101) including one or more venting pathways configured to alter a direction of one or more gases exhaled in an initial direction by a wearer (see annotated figures 2 and 3 below showing possible venting pathway, noting that a similar pathway exists on the opposite side that is not shown in figure 3; air exhaled by the wearer will change direction when it comes up against any part of the frame), the face mask including an adapter (118); a face shield (112) removably attachable with the adapter of the face mask (“shields have side apertures (i.e., 114, 116) which are received by clips (i.e., 118, 120) on the frame 101, maintaining the shield in position); and at least one attachment element (308, 310) extending from the face mask, the at least one attachment element configured to selectively engage a surgical mask (“the mask 302 has opposing elastic bands (i.e., 304) that surround the ears (305) of a wearer 300. The right band 304 has an upper portion 306 that is clipped to a lower clip 308 and an upper clip 310 on frame 101” paragraph 23; see figure 3) covering a nose and a mouth of the wearer (see figure 3; the surgical mask covers the nose and mouth of the wearer from below).
PNG
media_image1.png
635
463
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
646
529
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, De La Guardia discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one attachment element is configured to selectively engage a body of the surgical mask when worn by the wearer (“the mask 302 has opposing elastic bands (i.e., 304) that surround the ears (305) of a wearer 300. The right band 304 has an upper portion 306 that is clipped to a lower clip 308 and an upper clip 310 on frame 101” paragraph 23; see figure 3; the elastic bands of the mask are considered to be part of a body of the surgical mask).
Regarding claim 3, De La Guardia discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one attachment element includes a plurality of attachment elements configured to selectively engage the surgical mask when worn by the wearer (308, 310; “the mask 302 has opposing elastic bands (i.e., 304) that surround the ears (305) of a wearer 300. The right band 304 has an upper portion 306 that is clipped to a lower clip 308 and an upper clip 310 on frame 101” paragraph 23; see figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, De La Guardia discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one attachment element is configured to selectively engage an elastic band of the surgical mask when worn by the wearer (“the mask 302 has opposing elastic bands (i.e., 304) that surround the ears (305) of a wearer 300. The right band 304 has an upper portion 306 that is clipped to a lower clip 308 and an upper clip 310 on frame 101” paragraph 23; see figure 3).
Regarding claim 9, De La Guardia discloses: A system comprising: a surgical mask (302); a face mask (101) including venting pathways configured to alter a direction of one or more gases exhaled in an initial direction by a wearer (see annotated figures 2 and 3 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above showing possible venting pathways, noting that a similar pathway exists on the opposite side that is not shown in figure 3 for at least two pathways; air exhaled by the wearer will change direction when it comes up against any part of the frame), wherein the venting pathways are on an inside surface of the face mask which is adjacent the surgical mask (see annotated figure 3 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above, the venting pathways are on the inside surface of the face mask that is adjacent to the surgical mask; Examiner notes that the term "adjacent" is very broad and merely means "close to; lying near". (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)); a face shield (112) removably attachable with the face mask (“a curved, snap-on transparent plastic shield 112 […] the different interchangeable shields have side apertures (i.e., 114, 116) which are received by clips (i.e., 118, 120) on the frame 101, maintaining the shield in position” paragraph 20); and attachment elements extending from the face mask (308, 310), the attachment elements selectively engageable with the surgical mask (“the mask 302 has opposing elastic bands (i.e., 304) that surround the ears (305) of a wearer 300. The right band 304 has an upper portion 306 that is clipped to a lower clip 308 and an upper clip 310 on frame 101” paragraph 23; see figure 3) when covering a nose of the wearer (see figure 3; the surgical mask covers the nose of the wearer from below).
Regarding claim 10, De La Guardia discloses: The system of claim 9, wherein the attachment elements are selectively engageable with a body of the surgical mask (“the mask 302 has opposing elastic bands (i.e., 304) that surround the ears (305) of a wearer 300. The right band 304 has an upper portion 306 that is clipped to a lower clip 308 and an upper clip 310 on frame 101” paragraph 23; see figure 3; the elastic bands of the mask are considered to be part of a body of the surgical mask).
Regarding claim 11, De La Guardia discloses: The system of claim 9, wherein the attachment elements include at least four arms (clips 308, 310 can be considered arms; “clips 308, 210, which are on both side of the frame” paragraph 23; since the clips are on both sides of the frame, there are four arms) selectively engageable with the surgical mask (“the mask 302 has opposing elastic bands (i.e., 304) that surround the ears (305) of a wearer 300. The right band 304 has an upper portion 306 that is clipped to a lower clip 308 and an upper clip 310 on frame 101” paragraph 23; see figure 3).
Regarding claim 12, De La Guardia discloses: The system of claim 9, wherein the attachment elements are selectively engageable with first and second elastic bands of the surgical mask (“the mask 302 has opposing elastic bands (i.e., 304) that surround the ears (305) of a wearer 300. The right band 304 has an upper portion 306 that is clipped to a lower clip 308 and an upper clip 310 on frame 101” paragraph 23; see figure 3).
Regarding claim 13, De La Guardia discloses: The system of claim 9, further comprising a connector (118) removably attaching the face shield with the face mask (“shields have side apertures (i.e., 114, 116) which are received by clips (i.e., 118, 120) on the frame 101, maintaining the shield in position” paragraph 20).
Regarding claim 14, De La Guardia discloses: The system of claim 13, wherein the connector provide a friction fit between the connector and the face mask (“shields have side apertures (i.e., 114, 116) which are received by clips (i.e., 118, 120) on the frame 101, maintaining the shield in position” paragraph 20; the clip is considered to be friction fit insofar as claimed because there is friction between the clip and the shield).
Regarding claim 16, De La Guardia discloses: A system comprising: a face mask (101) including venting pathways, wherein the venting pathways are configured to redirect gases exhaled in a first direction by a wearer to a second direction that is about orthogonal to the first direction (see annotated figures 2 and 3 provided with the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above showing possible venting pathways, noting that a similar pathway exists on the opposite side that is not shown in figure 3 for at least two pathways; air exhaled by the wearer will change direction when it comes up against any part of the frame; this direction is “about” orthogonal insofar as defined by the claim); a face shield (112) removably attachable with the face mask (“a curved, snap-on transparent plastic shield 112 […] the different interchangeable shields have side apertures (i.e., 114, 116) which are received by clips (i.e., 118, 120) on the frame 101, maintaining the shield in position” paragraph 20); and at least one attachment element extending from the face mask (308, 310), the at least one attachment element configured to selectively engage a surgical mask (“the mask 302 has opposing elastic bands (i.e., 304) that surround the ears (305) of a wearer 300. The right band 304 has an upper portion 306 that is clipped to a lower clip 308 and an upper clip 310 on frame 101” paragraph 23; see figure 3) covering a nose and a mouth of the wearer (see figure 3; the surgical mask covers the nose and mouth of the wearer from below).
Regarding claim 18, De La Guardia discloses: The system of claim 16, wherein the at least one attachment element is configured to selectively engage at least one of a body of the surgical mask or an elastic of the surgical mask, when the surgical mask is worn (“the mask 302 has opposing elastic bands (i.e., 304) that surround the ears (305) of a wearer 300. The right band 304 has an upper portion 306 that is clipped to a lower clip 308 and an upper clip 310 on frame 101” paragraph 23; see figure 3).
Regarding claim 20, De La Guardia discloses: The system of claim 16, wherein the face mask includes a body portion (104) that includes the venting pathways, wherein the body portion does not include an opening through which the gases exhaled by the wearer flow (the lower portion 104 of the frame does not include an opening, see figure 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 and 19, as best as can be understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De La Guardia as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Paseman (US 11134730).
Regarding claim 8, De La Guardia does not explicitly disclose: The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more venting pathways includes a plurality of ribs on an inside surface of the face mask which is opposite an outside surface of the face mask that includes the adapter.
However, Paseman teaches a cushion (100) for a face mask that includes a plurality of ribs (“the cushion 100 includes flexible projections 104 and 106 shaped as parallel planes extending from the shaped base 102. This structure is sometimes referred to as a ribbed or ridged structure” column 5, lines 52-55).
Paseman teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of face masks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the cushion on the frame (face mask) of De La Guardia out of the flexible projections to form a ribbed structure, as taught by Paseman, in order to “provide greater comfort to a wearer of the mask brace because the flexible projections can conform to the structure of the wearer's face while still providing a seal of the face mask to the face” (Paseman, column 2, lines 23-26). Examiner notes that, as modified, these ribs are along the venting pathways as previously defined in the rejection of claim 1 above and shown in the annotated figures 2 and 3 of De La Guardia provided with the rejection of claim 1 above, so the venting pathways include the ribs.
Regarding claim 19, De La Guardia does not explicitly disclose: The system of claim 16, wherein the venting pathways include ribs that are approximately parallel to one another.
However, Paseman teaches a cushion (100) for a face mask that includes a plurality of ribs that are approximately parallel to one another (“the cushion 100 includes flexible projections 104 and 106 shaped as parallel planes extending from the shaped base 102. This structure is sometimes referred to as a ribbed or ridged structure” column 5, lines 52-55).
Paseman teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of face masks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the cushion on the frame (face mask) of De La Guardia out of the flexible projections to form a ribbed structure, as taught by Paseman, in order to “provide greater comfort to a wearer of the mask brace because the flexible projections can conform to the structure of the wearer's face while still providing a seal of the face mask to the face” (Paseman, column 2, lines 23-26). Examiner notes that, as modified, these ribs are along the venting pathways as previously defined in the rejection of claim 16 above and shown in the annotated figures 2 and 3 of De La Guardia provided with the rejection of claim 1 above, so the venting pathways include the ribs.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9, 13, 15-17, as best as can be understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalaitzis (US 2023/0181946) in view of Kaltenbach (US 2021/0345706).
Regarding claim 1, Kalaitzis discloses: A system comprising: a face mask (11i) including one or more venting pathways configured to alter a direction of one or more gases exhaled in an initial direction by a wearer (84; “metal layer 11i that is shaped as a facial mask that includes one or more micro-holes 84 or micro-openings 84” paragraph 153), and at least one attachment element extending from the face mask (4m, 4n; see figure 3), the at least one attachment element configured to selectively engage a surgical mask (48d) covering a nose and a mouth of the wearer (see figure 3; “the metal layer 11i can further include one or more hooks 4m, 4n that can be inserted into holes 2a, 2b that are associated with mask 48d” paragraph 153).
Kalaitzis does not explicitly disclose: the face mask including an adapter; a face shield removably attachable with the adapter of the face mask.
However, Kaltenbach teaches a face shield (30) removably attachable to a face mask (10) via a connector (spacer; “the protective shield 30 with its coupling devices 34, 36 is mechanically coupled to the mouth-nose guard 10 […] indirectly via spacer elements so that its relative position and spatial orientation relative to the head of the wearer is largely fixed” paragraph 87; see figures 2a, 2b) that attaches to an adapter on the face mask (the magnet on the face mask can be considered an adapter; “the intermediate member has a first longitudinal end at which a first magnet is disposed and a second longitudinal end at which a second magnet is disposed, wherein the first magnet is adapted to interact with the magnet of the auxiliary means, and wherein the second magnet is adapted to interact with the magnet of the connecting means […] the intermediate member can be a spacer, which can be arranged between the shield and the auxiliary means” paragraph 16; Examiner notes that the auxiliary means is another way to refer to the mask as described in paragraph 11, “the auxiliary means comprises a mask, in particular a respirator mask”).
Kaltenbach teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of face masks with attached face shields. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add a face shield and use magnetic connectors with spacers to attach the face shield to the mask, as taught by Kaltenbach (see figures 2a, 2b of Kaltenbach showing the connection of the face shield to the exterior of the face mask) in order to “achieve significantly better protection, in particular of the mouth-nose area, the chin and the cheeks against contamination, by means of a moisture-impermeable protective shield (Kaltenbach, paragraph 8), while still providing clear visibility (see Kaltenbach, paragraph 35, 37).
Regarding claim 5, Kalaitzis as modified discloses: The system of claim 1, further comprising a connector (spacer, as taught by Kaltenbach) selectively engageable with the face shield and the adapter (as modified, the spacer is selectively engageable with both the face shield and the adapter of the face mask via magnets; “the intermediate member has a first longitudinal end at which a first magnet is disposed and a second longitudinal end at which a second magnet is disposed, wherein the first magnet is adapted to interact with the magnet of the auxiliary means, and wherein the second magnet is adapted to interact with the magnet of the connecting means […] the intermediate member can be a spacer, which can be arranged between the shield and the auxiliary means” Kaltenbach, paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 6, Kalaitzis as modified discloses: The system of claim 5, wherein the connector further includes a friction fit connector (Kaltenbach, “the intermediate member has a first longitudinal end at which a first magnet is disposed and a second longitudinal end at which a second magnet is disposed, wherein the first magnet is adapted to interact with the magnet of the auxiliary means, and wherein the second magnet is adapted to interact with the magnet of the connecting means, such that the shield is clampable between the connecting means and the intermediate member via a magnetic connection” paragraph 16; see annotated figure 5e of Kaltenbach below showing a representation of the spacer configuration; Examiner notes that the clamping of the shield is considered a friction fit connection because clamping requires friction between the components involved).
PNG
media_image3.png
480
453
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Kalaitzis as modified discloses: The system of claim 5, wherein the connector further includes a magnetic connector (as modified, the spacer includes magnets; “the intermediate member has a first longitudinal end at which a first magnet is disposed and a second longitudinal end at which a second magnet is disposed, wherein the first magnet is adapted to interact with the magnet of the auxiliary means, and wherein the second magnet is adapted to interact with the magnet of the connecting means […] the intermediate member can be a spacer, which can be arranged between the shield and the auxiliary means” Kaltenbach, paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 9, Kalaitzis discloses: A system comprising: a surgical mask (48d); a face mask (11i) including venting pathways configured to alter a direction of one or more gases exhaled in an initial direction by a wearer (“metal layer 11i that is shaped as a facial mask that includes one or more micro-holes 84 or micro-openings 84” paragraph 153), wherein the venting pathways are on an inside surface of the face mask which is adjacent the surgical mask (the pathways go through the mask, therefore they are on an inside surface of the face mask that is adjacent (close) to the surgical mask); and attachment elements (4m, 4n) extending from the face mask, the attachment elements selectively engageable with the surgical mask when covering a nose of the wearer (see figure 3; “the metal layer 11i can further include one or more hooks 4m, 4n that can be inserted into holes 2a, 2b that are associated with mask 48d” paragraph 153).
Kalaitzis does not explicitly disclose: a face shield removably attachable with the face mask.
However, Kaltenbach teaches a face shield (30) removably attachable to a face mask (10) via a magnetic connector (34, 36; “the shield is attached directly to the mouth-nose guard or to the breathing mask, preferably via detachable fastening points, which can be […] magnetically adhesive” paragraph 63).
Kaltenbach teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of face masks with attached face shields. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add the face shield and magnetic connectors of Kaltenbach to attach the face shield to the exterior of the face mask of Kalaitzis, as taught by Kaltenbach (see figures 2a, 2b of Kaltenbach showing the connection of the face shield to the exterior of the face mask) in order to “achieve significantly better protection, in particular of the mouth-nose area, the chin and the cheeks against contamination, by means of a moisture-impermeable protective shield” (Kaltenbach, paragraph 8), while still providing clear visibility (see Kaltenbach, paragraph 35, 37).
Regarding claim 13, Kalaitzis as modified discloses: The system of claim 9, further comprising a connector removably attaching the face shield with the face mask (Kaltenbach, 34, 36; “the protective shield 30 with its coupling devices 34, 36 is mechanically coupled to the mouth-nose guard 10 directly via coupling elements 14 and 16 or indirectly via spacer elements so that its relative position and spatial orientation relative to the head of the wearer is largely fixed” paragraph 87).
Regarding claim 15, Kalaitzis as modified discloses: The system of claim 13, wherein the connector provides a magnetic connection between the connector and the face mask (as modified, the connector is a magnetic connector; “the shield is attached directly to the mouth-nose guard or to the breathing mask, preferably via detachable fastening points, which can be […] magnetically adhesive” Kaltenbach, paragraph 63).).
Regarding claim 16, Kalaitzis discloses: A system comprising: a face mask (11i) including venting pathways (84), wherein the venting pathways are configured to redirect gases exhaled in a first direction by a wearer to a second direction that is about orthogonal to the first direction (“metal layer 11i that is shaped as a facial mask that includes one or more micro-holes 84 or micro-openings 84” paragraph 153; Examiner notes that the “first direction” is any direction in which gas can be exhaled, so if a user blows air in a more downward direction, then the holes/venting pathways will redirect that air to be in a more horizontal direction, which is “about orthogonal” to the first direction insofar as claimed); and at least one attachment element (4m, 4n) extending from the face mask, the at least one attachment element configured to selectively engage a surgical mask covering a nose and a mouth of the wearer (see figure 3; “the metal layer 11i can further include one or more hooks 4m, 4n that can be inserted into holes 2a, 2b that are associated with mask 48d” paragraph 153).
Kalaitzis does not explicitly disclose: a face shield removably attachable with the face mask.
However, Kaltenbach teaches a face shield (30) removably attachable to a face mask (10) via a magnetic connector (34, 36; “the shield is attached directly to the mouth-nose guard or to the breathing mask, preferably via detachable fastening points, which can be […] magnetically adhesive” paragraph 63).
Kaltenbach teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of face masks with attached face shields. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add the face shield and magnetic connectors of Kaltenbach to attach the face shield to the exterior of the face mask of Kalaitzis, as taught by Kaltenbach (see figures 2a, 2b of Kaltenbach showing the connection of the face shield to the exterior of the face mask) in order to “achieve significantly better protection, in particular of the mouth-nose area, the chin and the cheeks against contamination, by means of a moisture-impermeable protective shield” (Kaltenbach, paragraph 8), while still providing clear visibility (see Kaltenbach, paragraph 35, 37).
Regarding claim 17, Kalaitzis as modified discloses: The system of claim 16, wherein the venting pathways are configured to redirect the gases exhaled to the second direction after the gases flow through the surgical mask (see figure 3 of Kalaitzis; when worn, the exhaled gases from the user would need to go through the surgical mask (48d) before it gets to the venting pathways (84)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Poissant (US 2023/0200470) and Van Der Hoeven (US 2022/0295920) teach relevant face mask/shield assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/JAMESON D COLLIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights