Surgical mask

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 . Multiple Embodiments This application discloses the following embodiments: Embodiment 1: Reproductions 1.1-1.7 drawn to a Surgical Mask in a flat position Embodiment 2: Reproductions 2.1-2.7 drawn to a Surgical Mask in an expanded position. Multiple embodiments of a single inventive concept may be included in the same design application only if they are patentably indistinct. See In re Rubinfield, 270 F.2d 391, 123 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1959). Embodiments that are patentably distinct from one another do not constitute a single inventive concept and thus may not be included in the same design application. See In re Platner, 155 USPQ 222 (Comm'r Pat. 1967). The above identified embodiments are considered by the examiner to present overall appearances that are visually similar. Furthermore, the differences between the appearances of the embodiments are considered minor and patentably indistinct, or are shown to be obvious in view of analogous prior art cited. Accordingly, they are deemed to be obvious variations and are being retained and examined in the same application. See Ex parte Appeal No. 315-40, 152 USPQ 71 (Bd. App. 1965). No argument asserting patentability based on the differences between the embodiments will be considered once the embodiments have been determined to comprise a single inventive concept. Failure of applicant to traverse this determination in reply to this action will be considered an admission of lack of patentable distinction between the above identified embodiments. REFUSAL Examiner’s Comment to Reproductions The examiner has carefully reviewed the reproductions of 11/7/2025. When inconsistencies are found among the views, the examiner should object to the reproductions and request that the views be made consistent. Pursuant to Hague Agreement Rule 9(4), "[a] Contracting Party may however refuse the effects of the international registration on the ground that the reproductions contained in the international registration are not sufficient to disclose fully the industrial design." The following formal matter is noted: There are lines shown in FIG. 2.1 that are either not present or in a different location in FIG. 2.5. Please see the arrows in the following annotated drawing. Correction is required. PNG media_image1.png 957 1335 media_image1.png Greyscale The examiner recommends using a lossless file format when submitting drawings through EFS-web (e.g., TIFF, PNG, GIF, BMP). EFS-web PDF Guidelines may be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-pdf-guidelines Any corrected reproductions submitted in response to this Office action must be compliant with 37 CFR 1.121(d). An amended replacement reproduction sheet should include all the reproductions appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one reproduction is amended. The reproduction (or reproduction number) of an amended view should not be labeled as amended. If a reproduction is canceled, that reproduction must be removed from the replacement sheet and the remaining reproductions and their related descriptions must be renumbered, as necessary. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining reproductions. If all the reproductions on a sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the sheet (labeled as "Annotated Sheet") including an annotation showing that all the reproductions on that sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the reproductions. Each 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 Examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 112(a) & (b) The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs, as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails 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. The scope of a claim is definite only when it is supported by an enabling disclosure. When the scope of protection sought exceeds what is enabling in the disclosure, the claim is indefinite. The claim scope must be less than or equal to the scope of the enablement. The scope of enablement, in turn, is that which is disclosed in the specification and is understandable to a designer of ordinary skill in the art without resorting to conjecture. The claim is indefinite and non-enabled because the disclosure described in the specification is insufficient. Dotted and broken lines may mean different things in different circumstances. It must be made entirely clear what they do mean, else the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, In re Blum 153 USPQ 177 (1967). “Therefore, when broken lines are used which cross over the full line showing of the design, it is critical that the description of the broken lines in the specification explicitly identifies their purpose so that the scope of the claim is clear.” MPEP §1503.02 (III). The two most common uses of broken lines are (1) to define the bounds of the claim, and (2) to disclose the environment related to the claimed design: (1) Broken lines used as boundaries generally border unshaded regions and are normally understood to represent claim limitations. (2) Broken lines used as environment are generally shown within a broken line boundary, outside of a claimed design, or superimposed upon the surface of the claim. The broken lines shown that appear over claimed subject matter in the drawings are not described in the specification. As a result, their intent(s) or purpose(s)—and as a result the exact scope of the claimed design—cannot be determined without resorting to conjecture. As a possible means to overcome this portion of the rejection, a broken line description should be inserted into the specification immediately preceding the claim, such as the following example: --The broken lines illustrate portions of the Surgical Mask that form no part of the claimed design. -- Replacement Drawing Information Any corrected reproductions submitted in response to this Office action must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d). The corrected reproductions must not contain new matter. 35 USC 132 and 37 CFR 1.121. Applicant is reminded that the numbering of the reproductions and legends must follow the Hague Administrative Instructions Section 405(a) consisting of two separate figures separated by a dot (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. for the first design, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, etc. for the second design, and so on) (see 37 CFR 1.1026 and MPEP 2909.02). 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. Care must be exercised to avoid introduction of anything which could be construed as new matter prohibited by 35 USC 132 and 37 CFR 1.121 when preparing amended reproductions. Refusal Reply Reminder Applicant is reminded that any reply to this Refusal must be signed either by a patent practitioner (i.e., a patent attorney or agent registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office) or by Applicant. If Applicant is a juristic entity, the reply must be signed by a patent practitioner. See 37 CFR 1.33(b). Conclusion and Contact Information The claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), as set forth above. The references are cited as art of record. Applicant may view and obtain copies of the cited references by visiting <http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html> and pressing the “Patent Number Search” button. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin Johnson whose telephone number is (571) 272-5730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday at 8:00 a.m. to 4:00p.m. 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, George Bugg, can be reached at (571) 272-2998. 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. /JUSTIN A JOHNSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2911