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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-8 remain pending in the application, with claims 9-12 remaining withdrawn to a non-elected grouping. Claims 13-15 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims (“Remarks” dated 08/22/2025) have been considered.
Regarding the argument that Grove does not disclose a pressure sensor that senses air pressure external to the hood, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, applicant argues against Grove not disclosing the claimed features which are taught by Ehler. Applicant does not appear to present an argument against the use of Ehler in teaching the claimed components.
The features which applicant argues that the claimed invention does not have (pages 7 and 8) has been considered but is not persuasive, since the claim uses the open transitional phrase “comprising” which is inclusive, or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. See MPEP 2111.03 (I) Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
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.
Claims 1, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Grove et al. (US 2005/0247310), hereafter Grove, in view of Ehler et al. (US 2016/0271428), hereafter Ehler, as evidenced by Misaqi (US 3736927), hereafter Misaqi.
Regarding Claim 1, Grove discloses a system for protecting against respiratory hazards present in ambient air of an environment external to the system (fig. 1, abstract), the system comprising: a mask (fig. 1, mask 3 [0021]) having a mask interior for placement on a face of a user (fig. 1, it is understood that the mask 3 has an interior surface placed over the face of a user [0021]), the mask having a mask seal between the mask interior and the face ([0021] line 4, the mask has a face seal) such that the mask seal has an incomplete seal when the mask is positioned on the face ([0032] the mask has a partial seal), the incomplete seal facilitating the passage of air between the mask interior and a hood interior ([0032] and tables 5 and 6 show data allowing air to pass between the mask and into the interior of the hood); a hood having the hood interior (fig. 1, hood 1 [0021]) and configured to cover the head of the user (fig. 1, hood 1 is shown covering the head of a user) and interface with the mask (fig. 1 [0021] the hood 1 is fixed to the face seal of the mask 3), the hood having a first interface seal adjacent with the mask ([0021] the hood is fixed to the face seal of the mask) and a second interface seal adjacent a neck region of the user (fig. 1, seal at neck 4 [0021]), such that the first interface seal is imperfect to facilitate the transfer of air from the hood interior through the first interface seal to the environment ([0039] a leak is introduced in the mask seal) and the second interface seal is imperfect to facilitate the transfer of air from the hood interior through the second interface seal to the environment ([0032] the cinched hood is not perfectly sealed at the neck); an air blower configured to provide air to the hood interior (fig. 2, blower 2 [0021]); at least one filter configured to filter air entering the hood interior via the air blower ([0021] blower 2 has a filter)
wherein the first interface seal is non-airtight such that a portion of air from the interior of the hood escapes between the mask and a face opening of the hood during operation of the air blower ([0039] a leak is introduced in the mask seal).
Grove is silent on the air blower located remotely from the hood and connected to the hood via an air hose, the air blower having a blower inlet for collecting air from the environment and a blower outlet connected to the air hose (fig. 2 shows the blower 2 directly connected to the hood but could be mounted any other location that was convenient and comfortable [0023]), and a pressure sensor, which detects pressure in the system, the pressure sensor positioned relative to the air blower for detecting air pressure external to the hood interior; and a controller to receive data from the pressure sensor and configured to control the air blower to maintain a predetermined air pressure in the hood interior, such that the predetermined air pressure is greater than a pressure of the ambient air.
Ehler teaches a system for protecting against respiratory hazards (fig. 1, [0002]) which includes the air blower located remotely from the hood (fig. 1, blower 30 is shown located remotely from the hood [0028]) and connected to the hood via an air hose (fig. 1, tube element 9 [0028]), the air blower having a blower inlet for collecting air from the environment (fig. 1, air inlet 31 [0028]) and a blower outlet connected to the air hose (fig. 1, air outlet 35 is shown connected to tube 9 [0028]), a pressure sensor (pressure sensor 8, fig. 1, [0028] line 17, detects pressure provided by the blower to the hood), which detects pressure in the system ([0030] measured pressure value 81 indirectly includes pressure within the hood, which can detect leaks in the hood, and is determined by the control unit 5 in relation to the face part/tube combination used), the pressure sensor positioned relative to the air blower for detecting air pressure external to the hood interior (fig. 1, pressure sensor 8 and a controller (fig. 1, control unit 5, [0028] line 21) to receive data from at least one pressure sensor (pressure sensor 8 measures pressure value 81 [0028] lines 21-24) and configured to control the air blower to maintain a predetermined air pressure in the hood interior ([0028] lines 21-27 and [0030], the blower uses the pressure sensor data to maintain a desired pressure value 83, fig. 1), such that the predetermined air pressure is greater than a pressure of the ambient air ([0030] the pressure provided is checked to ensure an overpressure against the surrounding area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a controller and a pressure sensor in Grove’s invention as taught by Ehler in order to ensure that pressure provided by the blower maintains the hood and mask at a greater pressure than the ambient air to prevent external contamination from entering the breathing mask (Ehler [0006]).
While Ehler does not appear to give a motivation for positioning the air blower remotely from the hood, this modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, as evidenced by Misaqi, which demonstrates that a blower for a protective respiratory head covering is known in the art to be positioned remotely from a hood and connected using a hose (fig. 1, blower 22 is located on a waist band and connected to a hood 26 by a hose 24, as stated in col 2 lines 45-47, “the unit is mounted on a support belt .. with the waist of a user in a usual manner”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the air blower remotely from the hood and connected to the hood via an air hose, as taught by Ehler, since this structure was well-known in the art prior to the claimed invention, as evidenced by Misaqi.
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Grove discloses a system according to claim 1, wherein the second interface seal comprises a draw cord for connecting the hood around the neck region (Grove fig. 1, draw cord 4 [0021]) to limit entry of air into the hood interior from the environment (Grove [0032]).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Grove discloses a system according to claim 1, wherein the controller controls the air blower based on predetermined pressure levels (as modified by Ehler fig. 1, [0030] the control unit 5 maintains a desired pressure value 83).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Grove, Ehler, and Misaqi, further in view of Walker et al. (US 2010/0108067), hereafter Walker.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Grove discloses a system according to claim 1, but is silent on the system further comprising a manifold system configured to distribute air flow received from the air blower inside the hood interior.
However, Walker teaches a respirator system (fig. 1, 10 [0052] line 1) that includes a manifold (fig. 2, manifold 20 [0053] line 2) configured to distribute air flow (figs. 1 and 2, [0054]) received from the blower (supply 42 [0055] lines 8-14) inside the hood interior (fig. 1, manifold 30 is inside the hood 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grove’s system for protecting against respiratory hazards to by using Walker’s manifold with perforations positioned at selected locations along an arm of a manifold for the benefit of delivering air to specific places at the user’s face, such as for breathing air to the nose and mouth as well as fresh air to the eyes and forehead ([0055] last 6 lines).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Grove discloses a system according to claim 2, wherein the manifold system comprises a branching tube to conduct air flow to predetermined areas of the hood interior (Walker, fig. 2, there are two arms 28a and 28b which conduct air to specific areas of the face [0055]).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Grove, Ehler, and Misaqi, further in view of Edwards (US 4971052), hereafter Edwards.
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Grove discloses a system according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the pressure sensor is provided as at least one of: an inlet pressure sensor positioned at the blower inlet and an outlet pressure sensor positioned at the blower outlet.
However, Edwards teaches a pressure sensor provided at both an inlet and an outlet (fig. 1, differential pressure sensor 17, col. 4 lines 18-19) and for a powered respirator unit (abstract) in order to be able to increase the fan speed in response to a decrease in the fan pressure differential (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the ambient sensor at the inlet in addition to the outlet of the blower as taught by Edwards in order to be able to increase the fan speed should the pressure differential across the fan between the inlet and outlet decrease to match the breathing demand of the wearer (Edwards, abstract).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Grove discloses a system according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the pressure sensor is provided as both an inlet pressure sensor positioned at the blower inlet and an outlet pressure sensor positioned at the blower outlet.
However, Edwards teaches a pressure sensor provided at both an inlet and an outlet (fig. 1, differential pressure sensor 17, col. 4 lines 18-19) and for a powered respirator unit (abstract) in order to be able to increase the fan speed in response to a decrease in the fan pressure differential (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the ambient sensor at the inlet of the blower, in addition to the outlet, as taught by Edwards, in addition to the in order to be able to increase the fan speed should the pressure differential across the fan between the inlet and outlet decrease to match the breathing demand of the wearer (Edwards, abstract).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Grove and Ehler, further in view of DeHart (US 6397395), hereafter DeHart.
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Grove discloses a system according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the first interface seal is provided by a drawcord adjacent to the mask seal.
DeHart teaches a protective mask and hood garment which includes a full face mask and hood (fig. 1, 104 and 102 respectively col. 3 lines 15-23). The hood is provided with a drawstring (fig. 4, 418 col. 4 line 13). The drawstring is able to tighten the mask against the wearer’s face and does not require any cumbersome fasteners such as straps or Velcro (col. 4 lines 20-24).
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 seal region of Grove’s hood and mask to include a drawstring as taught by DeHart so that the user can quickly tighten the mask against their face without the use of Velcro or additional straps.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 s unpatentable over Grove, Ehler, Misaqi, and Edwards, further in view of Carron (US 2012/0066819A1), hereafter Carron.
Regarding Claim 14, the modified Grove discloses a system according to claim 13, but is silent on further comprising a hood pressure sensor positioned in the hood interior.
However, Carron teaches a hood with a pressurized air source (abstract) with at least one pressure sensor (fig. 1, indicator 44 [0061]) which is configured to sense pressure inside the hood ([0061] indicator 44 is located inside hood 26 and senses pressure provided by air supply line 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grove’s hood to include a pressure sensor positioned in the hood interior, as taught by Carron, in order to be able to warn of a pressure drop inside the hood (Carron [0073-0074]); this may be beneficial, for instance, if there is a blockage between the blower outlet and the hood.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Grove, Ehler, Misaqi, and Carron, and further in view of Barnes (US 7658891 B1), hereafter Barnes.
Regarding Claim 15, the modified Grove discloses a system according to claim 14, the controller using the data from the pressure sensor to control a speed of the air blower (as modified in claim 1, the controller uses data from the pressure sensor to control the air blower).
However, the modified Grove is silent on further comprising a pressure reading from the hood pressure sensor to as data for the controller to control the speed of the air blower.
However, Barnes teaches a hood for a respiratory protective system (fig. 6, hood 22, col. 24 line 14) that uses a pressure sensor (fig. 21, 704, col. 40 line 51) which may be located in a mask or other location in the protective device (i.e., in the hood or helmet). The controller (fig. 21, 700, col. 40 line 46) receives information from the sensors (col. 40 lines 46-51) in order to control air and modify flow through the unit (col 40 lines 60-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include the pressure reading from the hood pressure sensor (as taught by Carron in claim 14) in the controller data used to control the speed of an air blower, as taught by Barnes, in order to be able to modify the air flow through the hood based on anticipation of a change from inhalation to exhalation to respond to pressure changes in the hood between respiratory cycles (Barnes, col. 40 line 65-col. 41 line 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lyon (US 2009/0205664) discloses a system for protecting against respiratory hazards (fig. 1, abstract), the system comprising: a mask for placement on a face of a user (fig. 1, face mask 12 [0031] line 3); a hood configured to cover the head of the user (see annotated fig. 1, [0034]) and interface with the mask (see annotated fig. 1); an air blower (fig. 3, blower 44 [0045] line 6) configured to provide air to the hood (blower is part of sterilization unit 16 [0031]) ; at least one filter configured to filter air entering the hood via the air blower (fig. 14, inlet filter 176 [0060]); at least one sensor, provided to the hood ([0065] air flow sensor may be provided); and a controller (control circuit board 158 [0065]) to receive data from the at least one sensor ([0065] the control circuit 158 may monitor the air flow) and configured to control the blower to maintain a predetermined air pressure in the hood (the control circuit 158 may adjust the air flow based on the air flow sensor [0065]; the air flow rate will directly affect the air pressure in the hood/mask, since the mask is airtight [0031]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA K. TOICH whose telephone number is (703)756-1450. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30 am - 4:30 pm, every other F 7:30-3:30 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 S. Lee can be reached on (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.
/SARA K TOICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 4100