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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 12/22/2025. As directed by the amendment, claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1 and 8-15 are pending in the instant application.
Regarding the objection to the specification, Applicant argues on page of Remarks filed 12/22/2025 that “the citations listed in FIGS. 9 and 10 were included as examples of the power requirements that have been demonstrated for plasmas used for other purposes and they do not relate to the present claims. Therefore, reconsideration and withdrawal of this objection are respectfully requested.” The Examiner respectfully notes that the function of drawings in an application is to aid in understanding the disclosed invention, and any drawing that is solely prior art should be labeled as such. If Applicant is asserting that Figs. 9 and 10 only portray prior art, they should be labelled as such, and the prior art references should still be listed in an IDS, or else the graphs in Figs. 9-10 should be removed from the drawings and e.g. submitted in an affidavit as evidence. The objection to the specification is maintained below, and a drawing objection is now included.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to address a minor informality; the previous objection to claim 1 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Figs. 9 and 10 include seventeen partial citations, but the complete citations are not recited in the body of the specification nor are they all provided on an IDS, such that a reader is not properly informed with regards to these prior art references.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
Figures 9 and 10 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. All of the citations from Figs. 9-10 should be listed on an IDS.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 should read “comprises a…orifice . 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 and 8-15 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 (and thus its dependent claims 8-15), the scope of “a non-thermal plasma reactor configured to…output treated air without using a filter” is unclear. First, it is unclear whether this limitation is intended to exclude filters from the entire device, or only from within/in conjunction with the non-thermal plasma reactor functionality. Second, it is unclear whether “a filter” is directed only to mechanical/ particulate filters, or whether it e.g. includes digital filters used in the operation of a non-thermal plasma reactor and/or the wide mesh of a blower intake. Third, per paras [0018] and [0043] of the instant specification, the disclosed non-thermal plasma reactor comprises a “packed bed” that causes a pressure drop, i.e. the bed is in-line with the flow, where an in-line packed bed is necessarily a mechanical filter at least to some degree, such that the disclosed non-thermal plasma reactor itself is a (mechanical) filter, further confusing the scope of the newly added limitation. For purposes of examination, as best understood in light of paras [0026] and [0037] of the instant specification, which discuss utilizing the device/a non-thermal plasma reactor without HEPA filters, in view of instant para [0041], which indicates that an ozone filter(s) may be present elsewhere in the device, the instant limitation will be considered to exclude particulate filters, such as HEPA filters, within the device, but Applicant must amend the claims to make the intended scope clearer.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martino (IT 1020200010348; hereinafter “Martino,” where the citations below refer to the translation provided with this Office Action) in view of Son et al. (US 2017/0136270 A1; hereinafter “Son”) and Wilson (US 2014/0102442; hereinafter “Wilson”).
Regarding claim 1, Martino discloses a jet air curtain wearable device (Figs. 1-3) that is wearable by an individual to create a jet air curtain generally containing a breathing zone of the individual, the breathing zone being a zone or volume containing air that is inhaled by the individual during inhalation (a personal protective device suitable to be worn by a user around the neck and/or head to purify…around the face for protection…or to isolate an infected person, abstract; a personal protective device of the wearable type which constitutes a barrier against the passage of droplets and contaminants, middle of page 2; the air does not hit [the user] directed on the face but passes about 1-2 cm away, bottom of page 3; one or more slits…adapted to generate respective air blades, top of page 3; plasma-enriched air is sent…towards the emission slit 7 which thus creates an air curtain, middle of page 6), the jet air curtain wearable device comprising:
a frame system (comprised by shell 2) configured to be worn on a head of the individual (shell 2 can be…shaped to rest on other parts of the head, for example on the upper part, top of page 5; should the shell 2 be shaped to be able to rest on the upper part [of the head], the slit 7 can be made on the lower part of the shell to emit a blade of air downwards, middle of page 5);
an air treatment system (comprising motors 13,14 and module 5) mounted directly to and supported by the frame system (Fig. 1; pages 4-6) configured to receive ambient air from an inlet system (comprising suction mouth 10/holes 11 and/or the pump inlets) mounted directly on the air treatment system and configured to receive ambient air (page 6), the air treatment system comprises a system for pumping the ambient air (comprising motors 13,14) and a non-thermal plasma reactor (module 5 for generating cold plasma) configured to receive the ambient air containing pathogenic particles and subject the particle-laden ambient air to a sterilizing condition to inactivate airborne pathogens and output treated air (air sucked in by the motors 13,14 enters through the holes 11…and is enriched by means of the cold plasma module 5 which instantly destroys the contaminants when released, breaking the cells membranes of the microorganisms and deactivating them…[t]he plasma-enriched air is sent [to the user], middle of page 6); without using a filter (while the middle of page 5 mentions that a HEPA filter can be present, the use of the term “can” indicates that its presence is optional, and the operation described on page 6 does not include any filters, and intentionally excluding particulate filters such as the optional HEPA filter of Martino would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to avoid the flow/pressure resistance created thereby, which could otherwise tax the pumps and/or user, see e.g. Son para [0003], which teaches using a non-thermal plasma reactor to provide a respirator that filters air without a mechanical filter(s), in order to avoid the flow/pressure resistance created thereby); and
an outlet system (comprising duct 6) supported by the frame system (Fig. 1), the outlet system operably coupled with the air treatment system to receive the treated air and output the treated air directly from an outlet orifice (slit 7) formed in a port of the frame as a jet air curtain generally surrounding the breathing zone of the individual (Fig. 1; pages 4-6).
Martino is silent regarding the frame comprising a visor or hat, wherein the outlet orifice is formed in a distal end of a brim of the visor or hat. However, this was a common configuration for head-mounted air purifiers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, see Wilson Figs. 9-10 [Note: in the event that the mountings/air treatment system configurations above are taken to indicate an external mounting of the air treatment system on the frame, Wilson also teaches this, see the airflow distribution device 22 in Wilson Fig. 9]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martino to include the frame comprising a visor or hat, wherein the outlet orifice is formed in a distal end of a brim of the visor or hat as taught by Wilson [with the air treatment system optionally externally mounted as further taught by Wilson], in order to provide the predictable result of a suitable-spaced air curtain and/or to provide additional protection to a user’s face from e.g. the sun [and to predictably provide an accessible and/or detachable air treatment system e.g. for ease of repair and/or retrofitting and/or transfer to different frames as desired].
Regarding claim 11, Martino in view of Son and Wilson teaches the jet air curtain wearable device according to Claim 1 wherein Martino further discloses wherein the outlet orifice is configured to output the treated air as the jet air curtain in a downward direction (the slit 7 can be made on the lower part of the shell to emit a blade of air downwards, middle of Martino page 5), and see also e.g. Wilson Fig. 9.
Regarding claim 13, Martino in view of Son and Wilson teaches the jet air curtain wearable device according to Claim 11 wherein Wilson further educates modified Martino to include wherein the outlet orifice comprises a plurality of nozzles (Wilson Fig. 10), because this arrangement would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to utilize a known air-curtain-producing structure, particularly one that can be tailored by adding or subtracting nozzles to provide a desired degree/extent of air flow.
Regarding claim 14, Martino in view of Son and Wilson teaches the jet air curtain wearable device according to Claim 11 wherein modified Martino further discloses/teaches wherein the outlet orifice comprises a continuously opened orifice (Martino slit 7) configured to extend from a first side of a head of the individual to an opposing side of the head of the individual (Martino Fig. 1 in view of Wilson Figs. 9-10, which teach the slot of Martino extending from one side of a brim/head to the opposing side of the brim/head).
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martino in view of Son and Wilson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jetter (US 2021/0346564 A1; hereinafter “Jetter”) (with claims 9 and 10 further evidenced by Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter “Applicant’s APA”)).
Regarding claim 8, Martino in view of Son and Wilson teaches the jet air curtain wearable device according to Claim 1 but Martino is silent regarding wherein the non-thermal plasma reactor is configured to output an electrical discharge operable to produce charged and reactive radicals to inactivate airborne infectious agents. However, Jetter teaches that it was known in the respiratory air sterilization art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the non-thermal plasma reactor is configured to output an electrical discharge operable to produce charged and reactive radicals to inactivate airborne infectious agents ([a]nother example of a microbe killer device is a dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) plasma reactor which is a non-thermal reactor, para [0017]; capturing small electrical arc discharges…electrons are generated and atoms are pulled from their molecules…generation of a large number of free radicals…plasma exposure can rupture a microbe’s cell’s walls, including viruses and bacteria, impairing and destroying the microbe’s normal activity, paras [0021-22]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Martino to include wherein the non-thermal plasma reactor is configured to output an electrical discharge operable to produce charged and reactive radicals to inactivate airborne infectious agents as taught by Jetter, in order to utilize a known non-thermal plasma generating means to predictably provide a non-thermal plasma suitable for sterilizing respiratory gas.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Martino in view of Son and Wilson teaches the jet air curtain wearable device according to Claim 1 but Martino does not explicitly state wherein the non-thermal plasma reactor is configured to remove infectious aerosols greater than 1 micrometer in diameter from the ambient air and wherein the non-thermal plasma reactor is configured to inactivate infectious aerosols less than 1 micrometer in diameter in the ambient air. However, Jetter teaches the same operation as claimed/disclosed for the killing/inactivation of both bacteria typically above 1 micrometer) and viruses (typically below 1 micrometer) (see claim 8 above), and para [0039] of the instant application (i.e. Applicant’s APA) indicates that the generation of charged and reactive radicals (i.e. as taught by Jetter) provides the claimed functionality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Martino to include wherein the non-thermal plasma reactor is configured to remove infectious aerosols greater than 1 micrometer in diameter from the ambient air and wherein the non-thermal plasma reactor is configured to inactivate infectious aerosols less than 1 micrometer in diameter in the ambient air as taught by Jetter and evidenced by Applicant’s APA, in order to provide the predictable result of fully sterilizing the air in the presence of both microbes and viruses.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martino in view of Son and Wilson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (US 2017/0361133 A1; hereinafter “Yu”).
Regarding claim 12, Martino in view of Son and Wilson teaches the jet air curtain wearable device according to Claim 11 but Martino is silent wherein the jet air curtain is configured to have a flowrate above 50 liters per minute. However, optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over the prior art, MPEP § 2144.05, and Yu teaches that it was known in the respiratory air curtain generation art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the jet air curtain is configured to have a flowrate above 50 liters per minute (150 L/min, paras [0106-107], see also 50 L/min in para [0088] and 300 L/min in para [0108]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Martino to include wherein the jet air curtain is configured to have a flowrate above 50 liters per minute as taught by Yu, in order to provide the predictable result of a suitable degree of air flow to provide the desired level of protection.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martino in view of Son and Wilson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Christensen (DE 835635; hereinafter “Christensen”).
Regarding claim 15, Martino in view of Son and Wilson teaches the jet air curtain wearable device according to Claim 11 wherein modified Martino suggests wherein the outlet orifice is configured such that the jet air curtain generally surrounding the breathing zone of the individual is configured to be bounded on top by the frame system, on sides by a head of the individual, and on bottom by a torso of the individual (Martino Fig. 1 in view of Wilson Figs. 9-10, which teach the slot of Martino extending from one side of a brim/head to the opposing side of the brim/head), and Christensen Figs. 1 and 3 reinforces that this was a known arrangement for air curtains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, which would have been obvious to ensure in modified Martino in order to provide the predictable result of a completely protective air shield (Christensen paras [0002-3]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references regarding brimmed air curtain/purification devices: Willan (US 2022/0118289 A1); Yeh (US 6,843,964 B2); Vila (FR 802,443); Akai (JP 2005-261713 A); Takenaka (JP 2009-61233 A). Additional references regarding the use of cold/non-thermal plasma sterilization for respiratory air purification, including for air curtains: Cohen (WO 2015/140776 A1; page 13, lines 4-8); Taylor, Jr. et al. (US 2004/0140194 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHRYN E DITMER whose telephone number is (571)270-5178. The examiner can normally be reached M 7:30a-3:30p, T/Th 8:30a-2:30p, W 11:30a-4:30p, F 1-4p ET.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/KATHRYN E DITMER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights