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 in response to the amendment filed 07/22/25. Claim(s) 1,19, 24, and 26 have been amended, no new claims have been added, and claims 5, 7, 11-12, and 17-18 have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 13-16, and 19-26 are presently pending in this application.
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.
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) 1-4 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (2011/0268290) in view of Hoffman (2007/0247009), and Kenyon (2008/0072900)).
PNG
media_image1.png
299
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 2C of Lee.
With respect to claim 1, Lee discloses a head wearable air purifier (10c, fig 2C) comprising a speaker assembly (see annotated fig 2C of Lee) arranged to be worn over an ear of a user (see [0020], lines 5-8); wherein the first speaker assembly comprises a speaker (40, fig 2C), a filter assembly (20, fig 2C), an impeller (fan; 32, fig 2C) for creating an airflow through the filter assembly (see [0021], lines 7-11), a motor arranged to drive the impeller (inherently fan 32 has a motor to drive the fan blades), and an air outlet (see annotated fig 2C of Lee) downstream from the filter assembly for emitting the filtered airflow from the speaker assembly (see airflow arrows 38 in fig 2C); wherein the first speaker assembly further comprises a housing (12, fig 2C) containing the speaker, the filter assembly and the impeller (see earpiece 12 containing all the elements in fig 2C); but is silent regarding the impeller and the motor are disposed within an impeller casing and wherein the impeller casing is supported within the housing by a plurality of resilient supports.
PNG
media_image2.png
305
406
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 6 of Hoffman.
However, Hoffman teaches a device (fig 8) with housing (124/126; fig 8) with an impeller (56, fig 1) and motor (motor assembly; 30, fig 6) arranged to drive the impeller about a central axis (see annotated fig 6 of Hoffman), the motor is disposed in impeller casing (12, fig 3) and wherein the impeller casing is supported within the housing by a plurality of resilient supports (108, fig 3 and see supports between housing and casing in fig 10) wherein when the impeller is oriented such that the central axis is in an up-and-down orientation (see orientation in annotated fig 6 of Hoffman), at least one of the upper resilient supports has an uppermost surface (see annotated fig 6 of Hoffman wherein the resilient support is above the surfaces as labeled) arranged completely above the inner surfaces of a duct (see annotated fig 6 of Hoffman; note the impeller casing is portable and allows rotation of the central axis to have the resilient support above and the duct below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the speaker assembly of Lee to include impeller casing and resilient supports as taught by Hoffman so as to provide vibration isolators which prevent the majority of vibration generated at the impeller from propagating to outside walls and/or which may be transmitted to the breathing device (see [0065], lines 14-18 of Hoffman).
PNG
media_image3.png
454
396
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig 8 of Kenyon.
Further, the modified Lee lacks one of the resilient supports is provided by a resilient duct that is sealed around and extends from an air outlet of the impeller casing and comprises a damping portion.
However, Kenyon teaches an impeller casing (90, fig 8) with a resilient support (108, fig 8) provided by a resilient duct (see aperture through 108 in fig 8) that is sealed around and extends from an air outlet of the impeller casing (97, fig 8) towards the air outlet of an assembly (110, fig 8), the resilient duct comprising a damping portion (see annotated fig 8 of Kenyon) arranged between the air outlet of the impeller casing and the air outlet of the assembly (see [0149]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the resilient supports of the modified Lee to include a resilient duct between the outlet of the impeller casing and the outlet of the speaker assembly as taught by Kenyon so as to provide flexibility and improved resistance against transfer of vibration from the impeller to the assembly (see [149] of Kenyon).
With respect to claim 2, the modified Lee shows the resilient supports are angularly spaced about the impeller casing (see location of multiple 108’s in fig 10 of Hoffman).
With respect to claim 3, the modified Lee shows two or more of the resilient supports extend radially between an outer surface of the impeller casing and an inner surface of the housing (see fig 10 of Hoffman where the supports are between the housing and the casing; after the modification of Lee by Hoffman the supports will be between the casing and housing).
With respect to claim 4, the modified Lee shows the two or more resilient supports are each attached to the inner surface of the housing and are compressed against the outer surface of the impeller casing (note the location of the supports in fig 10 of Hoffman).
With respect to claim 23, the modified Lee shows the damping portion comprises an integral axially damping profile damper that is provided by a bulge (see annotated fig 8 of Kenyon) formed around a circumference of the resilient duct (see annotated fig 8 of Kenyon where the bulge is around the aperture of duct 108).
With respect to claim 24, the modified Lee shows wherein the upper resilient supports are spaced around and extend from a top (see annotated fig 6 of Hoffman above) of the impeller casing wherein the upper resilient supports are arranged completely above the resilient duct when the impeller is oriented such that the central axis is in an up-and-down orientation (see orientation in annotated fig 6 of Hoffman), and wherein the resilient duct extends from a base of the impeller casing (see duct of Hoffman extending from base 14 and duct 108 extending from base 97 in fig 8 of Kenyon).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Hoffman, and Kenyon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meier (5,404,874).
With respect to claim 6, the modified Lee shows the filter assembly (see claim 1 above) disposed over the impeller casing (see fig 2C of Lee where the filter 20 is over the impeller) but lacks two or more of the resilient supports extend radially between an outer surface of the impeller casing and an inner surface of the filter assembly.
However, Meier teaches an assembly (1, fig 1) comprising an impeller (23, fig 3) with resilient supports (6, fig 1) extend radially between an outer surface of the impeller casing (8, fig 3) and an inner surface of a filter assembly (see location of supports between housing (see extension between casing 8 and filter 2 in fig 3 and see claim 1, lines 4-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the impeller casing and filter assembly to include resilient supports as taught by Meier so as to retain the filter to the blower and allow for easy removal and replacement.
With respect to claim 8, the modified Lee shows the two or more resilient supports are attached to an inner collar that is disposed over the impeller casing and to an outer collar that contacts the inner surface of the filter assembly (note after the modification by Hoffman and Meier the resilient supports will be attached on the wall that is between the filter and the casing on a casing collar (around element 13 in fig 3 of Meier) and filter collar (2a fig 3 of Meier)).
Claim(s) 19-20 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (2011/0268290) in view of Hoffman (2007/0247009), Kenyon (2008/0072900), and Meier (5,404,874).
With respect to claim 19, Lee discloses a head wearable air purifier (10c, fig 2C) comprising a headgear (16, fig 2C); and an air purifier assembly (speaker assembly; see annotated fig 2C of Lee) supported by the headgear (see fig 2C where the assembly attaches the headgear), the air purifier assembly comprising a filter assembly (20, fig 2C), an impeller (fan; 32, fig 2C) for creating an airflow through the filter assembly (see [0021], lines 7-11), a motor arranged to drive the impeller (inherently fan 32 has a motor to drive the fan blades), and an air outlet (see annotated fig 2C of Lee) downstream from the filter assembly for emitting the filtered airflow from the air purifier assembly (see airflow arrows 38 in fig 2C); wherein the air purifier assembly further comprises a housing (12, fig 2C) containing the filter assembly and the impeller (see earpiece 12 containing all the elements in fig 2C); but is silent regarding the impeller and the motor are disposed within an impeller casing and wherein the impeller casing is supported within the housing by a plurality of resilient supports.
However, Hoffman teaches a device (fig 8) with housing (124/126; fig 8) with an impeller (56, fig 1) and motor (motor assembly; 30, fig 6) disposed in impeller casing (12, fig 3) and wherein the impeller casing is supported within the housing by a plurality of resilient members (108, fig 3 and see supports between housing and casing in fig 10) wherein the resilient supports extend radially between an upper portion of the impeller casing and the filter assembly, wherein when the impeller is oriented such that the central axis is in an up-and-down orientation (see orientation in annotated fig 6 of Hoffman) at least one of the upper resilient supports has an uppermost surface (see annotated fig 6 of Hoffman) arranged completely above the inner surfaces of a duct (22, fig 6 and annotated fig 6 of Hoffman above) relative to the central axis (see annotated fig 6 of Hoffman; note the impeller casing is portable and allows rotation of the central axis to have the resilient support above and the duct below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the speaker assembly of Lee to include impeller casing and resilient supports as taught by Hoffman so as to provide vibration isolators which prevent the majority of vibration generated at the impeller from propagating to outside walls and/or which may be transmitted to the breathing device (see [0065], lines 14-18 of Hoffman).
The modified Lee lacks the plurality of upper resilient supports extend radially between an outer surface of the impeller casing and an inner surface of the filter assembly.
However, Meier teaches an assembly (1, fig 1) comprising an impeller (23, fig 3) with resilient supports (6, fig 1) extend radially between an outer surface of the impeller casing (8, fig 3) and an inner surface of a filter assembly (see location of supports between housing (see extension between casing 8 and filter 2 in fig 3 and see claim 1, lines 4-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the impeller casing and filter assembly of the modified Lee to include resilient supports as taught by Meier so as to retain the filter to the blower and allow for easy removal and replacement.
Further, the modified Lee lacks at least one lower resilient support extends radially between a lower portion of the impeller casing and the housing.
However, Kenyon teaches an impeller casing (90, fig 8) with a resilient support (108, fig 8) that extends radially (see radial bulge in annotated fig 8 of Kenyon) between impeller casing and housing (64, fig 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the resilient supports of the modified Lee to include a lower resilient support between the impeller casing and housing as taught by Kenyon so as to provide flexibility and improved resistance against transfer of vibration from the impeller to the assembly (see [149] of Kenyon).
With respect to claim 20, the modified Lee shows the air purifier assembly further comprises a speaker (40, fig 2C of Lee) contained within the housing (see location in fig 2C of Lee), and the air purifier assembly is arranged to be worn over a first ear of a user (see [0020], lines 5-8 of Lee).
With respect to claim 25, the modified Lee shows the at least one lower resilient support is configured to deform radially (see the radial shape of the lower resilient support after the modification by Kenyon and deforms radial to dampen vibration), and wherein at least one of the upper resilient supports is configured to deform axially (see the modification by Hoffman when the resilient supports deform axially between the housings).
With respect to claim 26, the modified Lee shows the lower resilient support is connected to an air outlet of the impeller casing (97, fig 8 of Lee and [0149] of Lee) and is configured to transport air from the air outlet of the impeller casing towards the air outlet the air purifier assembly (see [0149] of Lee where air travels through the aperture in 108), and wherein the plurality of upper resilient supports are arranged on an outer surface of the impeller casing (see supports on the outer surface in fig 1 of Hoffman) and are arranged completely above the at least one lower resilient support (as seen in annotated fig 3 of Hoffman the upper supports are above the duct which would be the location of the lower support as modified by Kenyon; thus the lower resilient support (108) is below the upper resilient supports) when the impeller is oriented such that the central axis is in an up-and-down orientation (see orientation in annotated fig 6 of Hoffman).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Hoffman, Kenyon, and Meier, as applied to claim 19 above, further in view of Jones (2015/0174435).
With respect to claim 21, the modified Lee shows all the elements as claimed above but lacks the air purifier assembly further comprising a nozzle arranged to receive the airflow from the filter assembly.
However, Jones teaches an air purifying device (100, fig 10) with a nozzle (4/6/8/10, fig 1) arranged to receive the airflow from a filter assembly (50, fig 2), the nozzle comprising an air outlet arranged to emit the received airflow from the head wearable air purifier (see [0040], lines 15-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the air purifier assembly of the modified Lee to include a nozzle as taught by Jones so as to directly supply filtered air for the user to breath.
With respect to claim 22, the modified Lee shows the housing comprises an air inlet (see annotated fig 2C of Lee) and an air outlet (see annotated fig 2C of Lee), and the air outlet of the housing is arranged to emit the airflow from the housing and is connected to an air inlet of the nozzle (after modification by Jones the outlet would be attached to the nozzle as seen in fig 10 of Jones).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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.
Response to Arguments
The arguments to the newly added claim limitations in claims 1-4,6,8-10,13-16 and 19-26 have been addressed in the above rejections.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY E BALLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4 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 at 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.
/KELSEY E BALLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TU A VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785