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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to an amendment filed on 7/14/2025. As directed by the amendment, claims 1 and 6 were amended, claims 2-3 were cancelled, and no new claims were added. Claims 9-19 were withdrawn. Thus, claims 1 and 3-19 are presently pending in this application.
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 contains legal phraseology, (i.e., the term “comprises” in line 2, the term “comprise” in lines 8 and 10, the term “means” in lines 3, 4, 7, 8 of the abstract). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 21, the term “such wearer’s” is suggested to be changed to --the wearer’s-- in order to clarify the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the limitations “an air-purifying ventilation system” (claim 5, line 2, where the term “system” is a generic placeholder and the function is “air-purifying ventilation”), “a body interface device” (claim 7, lines 1-2, where the term “device” is a generic placeholder and the function in the current context is “body interface”), “a mobile computing device” (claim 7, lines 2-3, where the term “device” is a generic placeholder and the function is “mobile computing”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 4-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “defined by a torso portion, a first arm portion, and a second arm portion” (lines 2-3) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, it is unclear if a torso portion, a first arm portion and a second arm portion are referring to parts/portions of a human body or structures of the upper extremity member that are configured to cover the torso, first arm, and second arm of the wearer, respectively, therefore, it is unclear as to what is meant by “defined by a torso portion, a first arm portion, and a second arm portion”, is the claim trying to claim that the upper extremity member comprising a torso portion, a first arm portion, and a second arm portion that are structural portions of the upper extremity member, where the torso portion is referring to a structural portion that is configured to cover a torso of the wearer, the first arm portion is referring to a structural portion that is configured to cover a first arm of the wearer and the second arm portion is a structural portion that is configured to cover a second arm of the wearer or if the claim is trying to claim the upper extremity member is defined by a torso portion, first arm portion and a second arm portion of the wearer.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “an ingestion means for drinking, eating, and vaping characterized by one or more self-contained cannisters” (lines 12-13) is unclear as to how to define the term “characterized”, is the term “characterized” describing a character of the egestion mean or is positively claiming that the egestion means comprising the structures following the term “characterized by”, therefore, it is unclear if the limitation after the term “characterized” is being positively claimed or not and it is unclear if the structures after the term “characterized” a part of the ingestion means. Furthermore, it is unclear as to what terms are being referenced to by the term “characterized by”, is it the ingestion means or is it vaping.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a face portion” (line 13) is unclear if the face portion is the same as or different from “a face portion” being claimed in claim 1, line 5.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “avoid any obstruction of a wearer’s lower extremities” (last line) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the term “any”, specifically is it any form of obstruction that is caused by the sterile body suit or any form of obstruction from any structures including the structures that are not part of the sterile body suit.
Any remaining claims are rejected for their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan (CN 1513392) in view of Carideo (8,708,708).
PNG
media_image1.png
1128
731
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1112
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Guan discloses a sterile body suit (entire suit in fig. 1 minus the pant 15 and boot 23 and any structures that obstruct with the lower extremities, the sterile body suit is interpreted as the structure above the waist closure in fig. 9, see the annotated-Gaun fig. 1 for reference), comprising an upper extremity member (see suit 14 defined by a torso, and first and second arm of the wearer, see figs. 1 and 8 and paragraphs 0039 and 0047) defined by a torso portion, a first arm portion, and a second arm portion (fig. 9), a helmet member (entire helmet in fig. 2 comprising 1, paragraph 0047 of the English translation), the helmet member having (a) a face portion and a head portion defining an interior cavity having an interior surface (see the annotated-Guan fig. 2 above); (b) a respiratory means (2, 3 and 4 and associated filter to each of 2 and 4, fig. 2, paragraph 0047) comprising a particulate filter (filter connected to inlet/outlet 4, inlet/outlet 4 is disclosed as having filter canister or self-contained oxygen, which, see paragraphs 0009, 0023 and 0047, the filter canister is an air purifying ventilation system), suction system (4, 4a and filter canister connected to 4 is a suction system since 4 is disclosed as inlet/outlet), and air ejection system (2 and 3, fig/ 2) and configured to draw ambient air through the particulate filter via a rear-facing vent disposed along the interior surface of the helmet member (see the annotated-Guan fig. 2 above, as shown, inlet and outlet 4 is connected to a particulate filter canister, furthermore, 4 would be a rear-facing vent (4) which is disposed along the interior surface of the helmet), and an air ejection system configured to discharge exhaled air through one or more vents disposed near a top portion of the helmet member (see paragraph 0047, Guan discloses that 2 is an air inlet and outlet, therefore, when being used as an outlet it is an air ejection system and would be configured to discharge exhaled air through the vent at 2 which is disposed near a top portion of the helmet member, see the annotated-Guan fig. 2 above);
(c) an ingestion means (7, fig. 2 and paragraphs 0047 and 0065, see the details of 7a and water bottle 19 in figs. 19-20) for drinking, eating and vaping (see paragraphs 0064-0065 and figs. 19-20, it is noted that the free end 7a is capable of being used to eat liquid food (non-solid food), drinking or vaping water vapor in the air or within the water bottle 19) comprising a supply nozzle (see the annotated-Guan fig. 2 above), wherein the ingestion mean is positioned along a face portion the helmet (see the annotated-Guan fig. 2 above), and an audio communication means (9 or 9 and 10, paragraphs 0013 and 0047); a control interface means (26 and 12, paragraphs 0046 and 0066); and a power supply (“BJ power supply”, paragraph 0066, fig. 21), wherein the sterile body suit is configured to be worn over a wearer’s upper extremities above such wearer waist (see fig. 1 with reference to fig. 9, when the wearer wear the suit (it is noted that the suit is interpreted as everything shown in fig. 1 minus the pants 15 and boot 23 and any structures that obstruct with the lower extremities), the suit would avoid any obstruction with the wearer’s lower extremities, the “any obstruction” is obstruction caused by the pants and boots which are not part of the sterile suit, furthermore, the jacket/suit 14 when worn is above the wearer’s waist in that it is on the outside, therefore, relative to the radial direction of the outer circumference of the waist, the lower portion of 14 is above the waist, alternatively, overall, a substantial portion of the suit having the helmet are position above the waist in the height direction), avoiding any obstruction of a wearer’s lower extremities, but fails to disclose that the ingestion means characterized by one or more self-contained cannisters disposed along a face portion of the helmet and in communication with one or more supply nozzles through which the contents of the one or more canisters are supplied to a wearer.
Carideo teaches an ingestion means characterized by one or more self-contained canisters disposed along a face portion of a face piece (150, figs. 7-8), the one or more canister is in communication with a supply mouthpiece through which content from the one or more canisters are supplied to a wearer (see col 12, lines 29-64 and figs. 7-8, drink canister 162 is connected to 157, both the canister 162 and 157 run along a face portion of a face piece, 157 is then connected to the mouthpiece 158, alternatively, the canister includes 162, 157 and external portion of 156).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ingestion means of Guan to have the one or more canister as taught by Carideo to be connected to the nozzle of Guan as taught by Carideo for the purpose of providing an alternative form of drinking means that can be quickly connected and disconnected from the nozzle in order to hydrate the wearer (see col 12, lines 29-64 of Carideo).
After the modification, see figs. 7-8 of Carideo, the canister 162 of Carideo is disposed along the face portion of the face piece of Carideo, therefore, after the modification, the canister would be disposed along the face portion of the helmet of Guan, alternatively, 162, 157 of Carideo and portion of 7 of Guan is considered as the one or more canister, which would be disposed along the face portion of the helmet of Guan since 7 closer to the nozzle is disposed along the face portion of the helmet of Guan.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Guan discloses a temperature control means (2a, fig. 2 and paragraph 0047 of Guan, Guan discloses a cap for allowing air to enter 2, therefore, depending on the air outside, if the air outside of the suit is cooler than inside, by allowing air to enter through inlet 2, 2a is a temperature control means, alternatively, temperature control means is 5/6, see paragraph 0050 of Guan, alternatively, the temperature control means is defined as including 5/6 and 4 and associated filter canister/self-contained oxygen, see paragraphs 0009, 0023 and 0047 of Guan).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Guan discloses that the control interface means (26 and 12) comprises a body interface device (12 or 8 or 10, paragraphs 0046-0047 of Guan, Guan discloses a spare microphone 12 and microphone 8, which would be a body interface device since the microphone is located in the helmet and interface with the body of the wearer) disposed along the helmet member (fig. 1 of Guan) or alternatively, the body interface device (26 of Guan) disposed along the upper extremity member (14, see fig. 1 of Guan).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan (CN 1513392) in view of Carideo (8,708,708) as applied to claim 4 above, and alternatively in view of Hsieh (2007/0283961).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Guan discloses that the temperature control means comprises an air purifying ventilation system (4 is disclosed as having filter canister or self-contained oxygen, which, see paragraphs 0009, 0023 and 0047 of Guan, the filter canister is an air purifying ventilation system, furthermore, air filter can be considered as a part of an temperature controls means relative to having no filter, since the filter acts as a layer of insulation vs no filter (an open hole)).
However, if there is any doubt that Guan discloses a temperature control means comprises an air purifying ventilation system.
Hsieh teaches a temperature control means (1 comprising 50, 10, 40, 20, 30, fig. 1) comprise an air purifying ventilation system (20 and 30, fig. 1, see paragraphs 0025-0033, Hsieh discloses a thermoelectric cooling module 50, a filter 30 and a fan 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the helmet member of the modified Guan to have the temperature control means as taught by Hsieh for the purpose of providing comfort to the wearer by providing forced ventilated air that are filtered and temperature controlled, thereby work efficiency is improved (see paragraph 0033 of Hsieh).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan (CN 1513392) in view of Carideo (8,708,708) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kanukurthy (2018/0108236).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Guan fails to disclose a tactile sensation means comprising one or more haptic actuators to actively generate tactile feedback to the wearer.
However, Kanukurthy teaches a tactile sensation means comprising haptic actuator to actively generate tactile feedback to the wearer (see paragraphs 0020 and 0051, Kanukurthy discloses that the PPE can generate alerts that are not audible but rather haptic, when the noise within the environment is too noisy, an alert that is haptic would have a haptic actuator (see device that vibrates of provides other haptic feedback in paragraph 0020), Kanukurthy further discloses that the haptic feedback can be used to notify the wearer of other hazard above a certain level or that the wearer may also be approaching their maximum shift dose levels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sterile body suit of the modified Gaun to have the tactile sensation means comprising a haptic actuator as taught by Kanukurthy for the purpose of providing wearer’s safety and well-being by notifying the wearer when an environment becomes noisy or other hazards go above a certain level (see paragraph 0051 of Kanukurthy).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guan (CN 1513392) in view of Carideo (8,708,708) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Czajka (2013/0091624).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Guan discloses that the body interface device comprises a communication module including microphone (12 or 8 or 10, paragraphs 0046-0047 of Guan, Guan discloses a spare microphone 12 and microphone 8 of Guan), but fails to disclose that the body interface device comprises an intelligent assistant operative to provide voice recognition services.
However, Czajka teaches a body interface device (communication modules including voice recognition module in paragraph 0120) comprising an intelligent assistant operative to provide voice recognition services (see paragraphs 0120, Czajka discloses that a voice recognition module can be configured to activate the wearer’s microphone circuit upon speaking to communicate without having to press a button so that the wearer may keep their hands free).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the microphone and control interface means of the modified Guan to have the intelligent assistant operative to provide voice recognition services as taught by Czajka for the purpose of providing convenience and safety to the wearer by allowing communication to be conducted in a hands-free manner (see paragraph 0120 of Czajka).
Response to Arguments
The arguments to the newly added claim limitations in claims 1 and 4-8 has been addressed in the above rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wallace (2020/0306567) is cited to show a haptic feedback means.
Kanukurthy (2020/0046040) is cited to show a haptic feedback means.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TU VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1045. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:30 AM to 5:30 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, Justine Yu can be reached on 571-272-4835. 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.
/TU A VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785