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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 7/30/2025. As directed by the amendment, claims 3, 5, and 19 have been amended, claims 9-10, 12, 14-16, and 23 have been canceled, and claims 24-25 have been added. Thus, claims 1-8, 11, 13, 17-22, and 24-25 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
2. The second claim “24” is a typographical error and should read --25--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 3-5, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (CN 203852759; see translation accompanying this office action) in view of Tsuchida et al (2020/0318646).
Regarding claim 1, Xiao discloses a head wearable air purifier (See annotated Fig. 2 below) comprising: a first speaker assembly arranged to be worn over a first ear of a user and a second speaker assembly arranged to be worn over a second ear of the user (Fig. 2 depicts first and second speaker assemblies configured to be worn over the ears of a user. Figs. 11-12 depict the ear assemblies over the ears of the user. It is noted that while Xiao does not disclose speakers within the assemblies, claim 1 does not actually recite a “speaker” as being part of the speaker assemblies), wherein the first speaker assembly comprises a filter assembly (Fig. 2, air purifying device 9 can be a HEPA filter; see [0064]), an impeller for creating an airflow through the filter assembly (Fig. 2 curtain fan 10 is considered an “impeller”), a motor arranged to drive the impeller (Fig. 2, curtain fan 10 must be driven by some type of motor) and an air outlet downstream from the filter assembly for emitting a filtered airflow from the first speaker assembly (Fig. 2, air outlet 6 serves as an outlet downstream from the filter 9); and a nozzle arranged to receive the filtered airflow from the first speaker assembly (Annotated Fig. 2 highlights the “nozzle” in the form of a head band connecting the two ear assemblies), the nozzle comprising an air outlet arranged to emit the received filtered airflow from the head wearable air purifier (Fig. 2, air outlet 7 emits air to the user).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Xiao does not disclose the impeller as a mixed flow impeller that has a conical or frusto-conical shape, and both the impeller and the motor are disposed within an impeller casing that is frusto-conical in shape.
However, Tsuchida teaches an electric blower including a mixed-flow fan to generate a current of air (Fig. 1, electric blower 1; see annotated Fig. 1 below. Fig. 4 depicts air flow through the electric blower 1. [0039] describes the moving blade 31 as a “mixed-flow fan”). The impeller has a frusto-conical shape (Fig. 1, moving blade 31 is frusto-conical in shape). Furthermore, both the impeller and the motor are disposed within an impeller casing that is frusto-conical in shape (Fig. 1, motor 10 and moving blade 31 are both located inside the housing 20. Annotated Fig. 1 highlights two regions of the housing 20 that are “frusto-conical” in shape). Tsuchida discloses that this type of electric blower design results in a high aerodynamic efficiency ([0008]).
PNG
media_image2.png
502
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 curtain fan of Xiao to be the mixed-flow fan/electric blower as taught by Tsuchida to provide the air purifier with high aerodynamic efficiency. While Tsuchida does not explicitly teach use of its electric blower within an air purifier, Tsuchida is analogous art because the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (i.e. efficiency of air flow through a system comprising a fan/impeller).
Regarding claim 3, the modified air purifier of Xiao has the impeller casing comprising a frusto-conical impeller housing surrounding the impeller (Tsuchida, Annotated Fig. 1 depicts the housing 20 having a frusto-conical portion that surrounds the impeller 31) and an annular volute fluidically connected to the base of the impeller housing that is arranged to receive the air exhausted from the impeller housing and to guide the air to the air outlet of the speaker assembly (Tsuchida, Annotated Fig. 1 additionally highlights an “annular volute” section of the impeller housing that receives air exhausted from the impeller section; see Fig. 4 for a depiction of air flow through the device).
Regarding claim 4, the modified air purifier of Xiao has the impeller housing provided with an air inlet through which air can be drawn by the impeller and an air outlet through which the air is emitted from the impeller housing into the annular volute (Tsuchida, Annotated Fig. 1 points out an air inlet 26a and an air outlet that leads to an annular volute).
Regarding claim 5, the modified air purifier of Xiao has the air inlet of the impeller housing provided by an aperture at a small diameter end of the impeller housing (Tsuchida, Fig. 1, air inlet 26a is located at a small diameter end of the impeller casing 20. Fourth portion 24 of the casing tapers to a “small diameter end” and forms the air inlet 26a) and the air outlet is provided by an annular slot formed around a base of the impeller housing (Tsuchida, Figs. 1 and 4 depict the air outlet from the fan section as an annular slot located near the first portion 21 (i.e. “base”) of the impeller casing 20).
Regarding claim 17, Xiao discloses a head wearable air purifier (Fig. 2; see annotated Fig. 2 above for convenience) comprising: a headgear (Figs. 11-12 depict the device over the ears of the user, thereby making the air purifier “headgear”); an air purifier assembly supported by the headgear, the air purifier assembly (Fig. 2 depicts first and second assemblies configured to be worn over the ears of a user that serve a “air purifier” assemblies) comprising a filter assembly(Fig. 2, air purifying device 9 can be a HEPA filter; see [0064]), an impeller for creating an airflow through the filter assembly (Fig. 2 curtain fan 10 is considered an “impeller”), a motor arranged to drive the impeller (Fig. 2, curtain fan 10 must be driven by some type of motor) and an air outlet downstream from the filter assembly for emitting a filtered airflow from the air purifier assembly (Fig. 2, air outlet 6 serves as an outlet downstream from the filter 9).
Xiao does not disclose the impeller as a mixed flow impeller that has a conical or frusto-conical shape, and both the impeller and the motor are disposed within an impeller casing that is frusto-conical in shape.
However, Tsuchida teaches an electric blower including a mixed-flow fan to generate a current of air (Fig. 1, electric blower 1; see annotated Fig. 1 above. Fig. 4 depicts air flow through the electric blower 1. [0039] describes the moving blade 31 as a “mixed-flow fan”). The impeller has a frusto-conical shape (Fig. 1, moving blade 31 is frusto-conical in shape). Furthermore, both the impeller and the motor are disposed within an impeller casing that is frusto-conical in shape (Fig. 1, motor 10 and moving blade 31 are both located inside the housing 20. Annotated Fig. 1 highlights two regions of the housing 20 that are “frusto-conical” in shape). Tsuchida discloses that this type of electric blower design results in a high aerodynamic efficiency ([0008]).
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 curtain fan of Xiao to be the mixed-flow fan/electric blower as taught by Tsuchida to provide the air purifier with high aerodynamic efficiency. While Tsuchida does not explicitly teach use of its electric blower within an air purifier, Tsuchida is analogous art because the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (i.e. efficiency of air flow through a system comprising a fan/impeller).
6. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao in view of Tsuchida, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jones (2015/0174435).
Regarding claim 6, the modified air purifier of Xiao does not have a speaker housing comprising a speaker chassis upon which a speaker drive is mounted.
However, Jones teaches a head wearable personal air filter comprising an ear assembly having both a speaker (claim 17) and an air filter (Fig. 6, filter pieces 24 and 26).
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 air purifier of Xiao to have a speaker in the first and second assemblies as taught by Jones. Inclusion of a speaker in the ear assemblies would provide an additional entertainment function to the user. It is the examiner’s position that a speaker inside the ear pieces would inherently have a housing, a chassis, and a speaker driver.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 2, 7-8, 11 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record does not disclose “wherein the entirety of the motor is disposed within a narrowest end of a cavity defined by a back of the impeller” (ln. 1-2) in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record does not disclose “wherein the speaker driver is at least partially disposed within a recess defined by a back of the impeller casing” (ln. 1-2) in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record does not disclose “wherein the speaker housing further comprises a frusto-conical speaker cover mounted over the speaker driver, and the speaker cover is at least partially disposed within a recess defined by a back of the impeller casing” (ln. 1-4) in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, the prior of record does not disclose “wherein the filter assembly further comprises a filter seat supporting the one or more filter elements, and the impeller casing is at least partially disposed within a volume defined by a back of the filter seat” (claim 11, ln. 1-4) in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
8. Claim 18 is allowed. The prior art of record does not disclose “wherein the first speaker assembly is arranged such that the speaker driver is nested behind the impeller casing the impeller casing is nested behind the filter assembly” (ln. 12-14) in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
9. Claims 19-22 are allowed. The prior art of record does not disclose “wherein the first speak assembly comprises a control circuit that at least partially encircles the speaker driver” (claim 19, ln. 11-12) in combination with the remaining claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments filed 7/20/2025 on Pages 7-8 with respect to claim 1 and regarding Tsuchida describing a heavy-duty motor and fan configuration meant for power tools, leaf blowers, and vacuum cleaners have been considered, but are not persuasive. While Tsuchida does describe “heavy duty” applications such as a vacuum cleaner or and hand drying device, the general device of Tsuchida is simply described as an “electric blower” without any reference to the size or power of the device. Furthermore, even if the motor and fan were of a larger size, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to scale the size of the device to the application at hand (i.e. a motor sized to be placed around the ear of the user for drawing air through a filter). A person of ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton and would make inferences and creative steps consistent with the skills of the person. See MPEP 2141.03(I). Scaling down a motor and fan to a size appropriate for use around the ear of a user is an example of a “creative step” that one of ordinary skill in the art of fans and blowers would employ.
Conclusion
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A STANIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5139. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:30-5:00.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785