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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 01/08/2026 has been received and considered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-9, 12-14, 16, and 20 remain pending in the application and claim 21 has been newly added. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/08/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/08/2026 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered.
The argument on page 7 that Blackwood does not teach an unmanaged mode has been considered, but is not persuasive since Applicant does not claim “unmanaged” in claim 1, and does not specifically disclose an “unmanaged” mode as argued. The static mode described by Applicant operates irrespective of the pressure sensors in the hood or mask (original specification [0050] and [0080]); but the static mode is not described as unmanaged in the original disclosure. Examiner agrees that Blackwood does not disclose a completely “unmanaged” mode, since the static mode disclosed by Blackwood uses a thermistor to measure the set level of the fan to maintain a constant speed. However, claim 16 required that “a set pressure of the interior of said hood is left unmanaged”, and since Blackwood does not use the pressure sensor data in operating the fan in the second mode of operation (equivalent to applicant’s first mode), the pressure is not managed, only the fan speed.
Please see below for the 112(a) new matter rejection of the amended claim limitation reciting the operation of the static mode of the blower being irrespective of any sensor, since this condition is not disclosed in the original specification. Please also refer to the updated prior art rejection below addressing this change in the scope of the claims.
Regarding the argument on page 8 that Hur teaches against using a maximum air flow to a user, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assessment of Hur [0043]. Hur demonstrates in [0043] that the disclosed method and device is used as an alternative to a maximum air flow. That is to say, Hur demonstrates that a mode in which there is no control of the fan speed was known in the art, and the disclosed method is an alternative. By indicating a preference for controlling the fan speed, the prior art does not “teach away” from providing the user with a maximum air flow at all times. See MPEP 2123(II): “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments…. "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” Hur simply points to the advantages of adjusting the fan speed versus the alternative maximum fan speed operation mode.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2 limitation “the manifold includes a perforations” is interpreted according to the standard definition “an aperture passing through or into something” (Oxford Languages Dictionary) based on the original specification that “perforations” are openings [0054].
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the user interface input” has poor antecedent basis to parent claim 16, which recites “a first user interface input” and “a second user interface input”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 12-14, 16, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 16 recite “the first operational mode being a static mode operating the air blower at a predefined set speed irrespective of any sensor reading including an air pressure measurement”. However, this is not supported in the original specification. The original specification only provides support for the static mode of the blower being operated irrespective of the pressure sensors of the hood and/or mask. Specification [0050] states that that the static mode “runs the blower 320 at a set/predefined (e.g. maximum) fan speed, irrespective of any sensor 220 readings of the pressure(s) of the hood 310 and/or mask 340.” (emphasis added). Specification [0080] also states that the static mode “step 802a, as represented by the parameter settings 325a, such that pressure readings of the sensors 220 are not used (e.g. are ignored) to dynamically adjust the blower speed.” There is no support in the specification regarding the blower operating without any sensor reading. See MPEP 2173.05(i): the mere absence of a positive recitation (in the specification) is not basis for an exclusion.
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, 8-9, 12, 16, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Grove et al. (US 2005/0247310 A1), hereafter Grove, in view of Tischer et al. (US 2002/0046752 A1), hereafter Tischer, Blackwood et al. (US 5577496), hereafter Blackwood, and further in view of Hur et al. (US 2018/0028846), hereafter Hur.
Regarding Claim 1, Grove discloses a system for protecting against respiratory hazards (fig. 1, chemical/biological hood 1 [0021]), the system comprising: a hood configured to cover a head of a user (fig. 1, hood 1 [0021]) and overlap with a mask positioned on a face of the user (fig. 1, mask 3 [0021]) within an interior of the hood ([0021] the hood is fixed over the outer seal of the face mask, thus the mask is positioned within the interior of the hood), the mask being separate from the hood ([0021] the hood and mask are separate, distinct portions of the assembly) and positioned within the interior ([0021]), the hood having a neck opening for accommodating a neck of the user (fig. 1, hood 1 seals at the neck 4 [0021]) and a face opening for accommodating the mask (fig. 1, face seal portion 5 of the mask is covered by the hood [0021] and thus there is an opening in the hood to accommodate the mask), the neck opening having a neck connection for positioning adjacent to the neck (fig. 1, the neck 4 has a cinch or seal [0021]) and the face opening having a mask connection for connecting the hood to the mask ([0021] the hood is fixed to or over the mask seal), wherein the mask has a mask seal around an edge of the mask to provide contact between the mask seal and the face of the user (fig. 1, mask seal 5 [0021]), the mask seal positioned adjacent to the mask connection of the face opening (fig. 1, [0021]), the hood and mask providing a hood and mask assembly (as seen in fig. 1 [0021]): an air blower connected with the hood in order to provide air to the interior of the hood (fig. 1, filter and blower 2 [0021]).
Grove does not explicitly disclose that the mask connection is porous to facilitate escaping of a portion of air between the mask and the face opening ([0039] states that a leak is known in the mask seal, however, it is not explicitly known whether the leak exists between the face and the mask, or the hood and the mask); similarly, Grove is not explicit on wherein the mask connection is non-airtight such that the portion of air from the interior of the hood escapes between the mask and the face opening of the hood and mask assembly during operation of the blower.
Tischer teaches a hood with a respirator face mask (fig. 3, 22 [0033]) which has a separate hood (fig. 3, 24 [0033]) and mask (fig. 3, 26 [0033]) that connect at a rim (fig. 3, 60 [0037]) through hook and pile (fig. 5, 72, 74 [0041]) or alternatively a snap system (fig. 6, 78 [0042]), both of which are understood to be porous, since these connection types are understood to not be air-tight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect Grove’s hood over the outer seal of the face mask using hook and pile as taught by Tischer, such that the connection is porous and non-airtight, and the mask remains inside the hood, which in turn means that a portion of air escapes from between the mask and the hood, since the connection taught by Tischer is protective against fumes, smoke, and heat (Tischer [0006], [0013]).
Grove as modified is also silent on at least one pressure sensor coupled to a controller, the at least one pressure sensor for providing an air pressure measurement at a selected location; a user interface facilitating a user selection of an operational mode from a plurality of operational modes, the user selection to be provided as user interface input to a controller during operation of the air blower: and the controller able to receive data from at least one of the at least one pressure sensor and the user interface input, the controller configured to control the air blower to adjust the air pressure in the interior of the hood in response to said user interface input received from the user interface during operation of the air blower for the hood and mask assembly, such that each of the plurality of operational modes are represented by a different set of operational parameters for the same hood and mask assembly, such that the user interface input directs the controller to adjust the ongoing operation of the air blower between a first operational mode and a second operational mode of the plurality of operational modes;
the first operational mode being a static mode operating the air blower at a predefined set speed irrespective of any sensor reading including the air pressure measurement, such that the data received from the at least one pressure sensor is disregarded by the controller and instead the air blower runs at the predefined set speed irrespective of the air pressure within the interior;
the second operational mode being a dynamic mode for dynamically adjusting a speed of the air blower in response to the data received by the controller from the at least one pressure sensor, such that the dynamic mode operates as a variable speed setting performed as the dynamic mode managed by the controller.
Blackwood teaches a respiratory protective apparatus having a blower (fig. 2, 35 col. 3 line 43) that may provide filtered airflow to a hood (col. 1 lines 56-57 and col. 2 lines 9-11) which includes at least one pressure sensor (fig. 1, pressure sensor 100, col. 4 lines 17-18 is interpreted to be a typo intending to be 110; pressure sensor 110, fig. 2, col. 4 line 38) coupled to a controller (col. 4 lines 17-19, controller is microcontroller 52, fig. 2), the at least one pressure sensor for measuring air pressure at a selected location (fig. 2, pressure sensor 110 is located at the blower outlet, col. 4 lines 3839); a user interface facilitating a user selection of an operational mode from a plurality of operational modes (col. 4 lines 20-23; mode selector switch not shown), the user selection to be provided as user interface input to a controller during operation of the air blower (col. 4 lines 20-23, the wearer uses the mode selector switch to choose between various modes of operation); and the controller able to receive data from at least one of the at least one pressure sensor (fig. 4, the microcontroller 52 receives pressure data from sensor 110, col. 4 lines 41-45) and the user interface input (col. 4 lines 20-23, the mode selector switch inputs the mode of operation to the device), the controller configured to control the air blower to adjust the air pressure in the interior of the hood in response to said user interface input received from the user interface during operation of the air blower for the hood and mask assembly (col. 4 lines 26-40, the controller is set by the user to a first mode of operation which controls the blower in response to the pressure sensor; col. 6 lines 36-42, in a selected second mode of operation, the microcontroller adjusts the air pressure to be maintained between two set points), such that each of the plurality of operational modes are represented by a different set of operational parameters for the same hood and mask assembly (the first mode of operation provides a breath-responsive mode of operation, lines 25-34; the second mode of operation provides a pressure maintained between two set points, col. 6 lines 36-42), such that the user interface input directs the controller to adjust the ongoing operation of the air blower between a first operational mode and a second operational mode of the plurality of operational modes (col. 4 lines 20-23, the user operates a mode selector switch to choose between operational modes), the first operational mode being a static mode operating the air blower at a predefined set speed (the “second mode of operation” maintains the speed of the impeller to maintain a preset air flow level, col. 6 lines 36-42) irrespective of any sensor reading including the air pressure measurement, such that the data received from the at least one pressure sensor is disregarded by the controller and instead the air blower runs at the predefined set speed irrespective of the air pressure within the interior (the second mode of operation does not use the pressure sensor to regulate the speed of the impeller and thus the air flow, col. 6 lines 36-42);
the second operational mode being a dynamic mode for dynamically adjusting a speed of the air blower in response to the data received by the controller from the at least one pressure sensor, such that the dynamic mode operates as a variable speed setting performed as the dynamic mode managed by the controller (one of the operational modes, referred to in name only as the “first mode of operation”, adjusts the pressure dynamically according to feedback from the pressure sensor, col. 4 lines 25-48; as interpreted by the examiner according to the instant application’s specification [0049], “first, second, third modes are just labels”).
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 operation of Grove’s blower to include the features taught above by Blackwood in order to provide the option of a mode having greater efficiency where the blower provides air based on demand, and the option of maintaining pressure above a minimum for the safety of the wearer (Blackwood col. 1 lines 34-38, 43-47 and col. 2 lines 22-26 and 45-50).
The now modified device remains silent on the first operational mode being a static mode operating the air blower at a predefined set speed irrespective of any sensor reading including the air pressure measurement (emphasis added; Blackwood uses a thermistor to detect the fan speed in the static mode to ensure that the fan speed remains the same).
Hur teaches two operational modes for a personal air purifying respirator device which can be used in conjunction with a mask or a hood ([0031]) that uses a microcontroller ([0043], fig 22). The first mode adjusts the speed of a fan based on the respiration rate of a user. The respiration rate of the user can be monitored by a pressure sensor measuring the pressure in the system ([0044]). Hur offers the dynamically controlled flow mode as an alternative to a mode where a maximum flow of filtered air is provided at all times ([0043]), in which the maximum flow is supplied to the user irrespective of any sensor reading including the air pressure measurement, since in this alternate mode, the pressure sensor would be ignored. That is to say, Hur demonstrates that providing the user with a maximum flow of filtered air without feedback from a sensor, is a known alternative in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grove’s first mode in which the first parameter set directs the controller to ignore the set pressure by disregarding the measured air pressure provided by the at least one pressure sensor, as taught by Hur, as Hur teaches that this operational mode is a known alternative option to a second mode of operation which provides a measured air pressure to control the operation of the device.
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Grove discloses a system according to claim 1, wherein the speed of the air blower is adjusted in the second operational mode to provide a set pressure as a set pressure limit for the air pressure within the hood (as modified by Blackwood, the first mode of operation uses a set point pressure such that when the pressure falls below this limit, the motor speed increases, fig. 4, col. 5 lines 32-40).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Grove discloses a system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the speed of the air blower is adjusted in the second operational mode to provide a set pressure as a pressure range limit for the air pressure within the hood (as modified by Blackwood, in the second mode of operation, the microcontroller uses a detector to determine if the pressure is below a preset air flow level and a first set level, which is a pressure range having a lower limit, to ensure that the impeller speed is increased when the pressure falls below the first set level to achieve the preset air flow level, col. 6 lines 23-27) .
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set a range of pressure limits for the air pressure within the hood as taught by Blackwood’s static operating mode, since the fan is expected to have variation in operation due to air filter clogs, or an air filter with a greater resistance to air flow may be used (Blackwood col. 6 lines 33-35).
Regarding Claim 12, the modified Grove discloses a system according to claim 1 further comprising a relief strap connected to the hood, the relief strap for gathering material of said hood in order to adjust a fit of said hood for the user (Grove fig. 1, neck seal 4 [0021]).
Regarding Claim 16, Grove discloses a method for protecting against respiratory hazards (fig. 1, abstract) using a system having a hood (fig. 1, hood 1 [0021]) coupled to a mask (fig. 1, mask 3 [021]) by a mask connection (fig. 1, the hood covers the mask seal 5 and is fixed over or to the mask[0021]), an air blower connected with the hood in order to provide air to an interior of the hood (fig. 1, blower 2 [0021]), the hood and mask providing a hood and mask assembly (as seen in fig. 1).
However, Grove is silent on: the method comprising: selecting a first operational mode from a plurality of operational modes from a user interface, the selection provided as a first user interface input to a controller during operation of the air blower, the first operating mode being a static mode operating the air blower at a predefined set speed irrespective of any sensor reading including an air pressure measurement, such that data received from at least one pressure sensor is disregarded by the controller and instead the air blower runs at the predefined set speed irrespective of air pressure within the interior such that a set pressure of the interior of said hood is left unmanaged; operating the air blower coupled to said hood based on a first parameter set associated with the first operational mode; selecting a second operational mode from the plurality of operational modes from the user interface provided as a second user interface input to the controller during operation of the air blower, the second operational mode being a dynamic mode for dynamically adjusting the speed of the air blower in response to the data received by the controller from the at least one pressure sensor, such that the dynamic mode operates as a variable speed setting performed as the dynamic mode managed by the controller; and operating said air blower based on a second parameter set associated with the second operational mode in conjunction with available pressure readings from the at least one air pressure sensor, such that the second parameter set is different from the first second parameter set; wherein the controller controls the air blower to adjust the air pressure in the interior of the hood in response to said first user interface input and said second user interface input received from the user interface during operation of the air blower for the hood and mask assembly, such that each of the plurality of operational modes are represented by a different set of operational parameters for the same hood and mask assembly, such that the user interface input directs the controller to adjust the ongoing operation of the air blower between the first operational mode and the second operational mode of the plurality of operational modes. Grove also does not explicitly disclose whether the mask connection is non-airtight such that the portion of air from the interior of the hood escapes through the mask connection during operation of the air blower.
Blackwood teaches a blower system for a hood (fig. 2, blower 35 col. 3 line 43; hood, col. 1 lines 56-57 and col. 2 lines 9-11) with a method comprising: selecting a first operational mode from a plurality of operational modes from a user interface (col. 4 lines 21-23, a mode selector switch is used by the wearer to select between various modes of operation), the selection provided as a first user interface input to a controller during operation of the air blower (col. 4 lines 23-31, the user switches to a chosen mode of operation), the first operating mode being a static mode operating the air blower at a predefined set speed (the “second mode of operation” maintains the speed of the impeller to maintain a preset air flow level, col. 6 lines 36-42), such that data received from at least one pressure sensor is disregarded by the controller and instead the air blower runs at the predefined set speed irrespective of air pressure within the interior such that a set pressure of the interior of said hood is left unmanaged (the second mode of operation does not use the pressure sensor to regulate the speed of the impeller and thus the pressure in the hood is unmanaged, col. 6 lines 36-42; only the fan speed is controlled through the thermistor); operating the air blower coupled to said hood based on a first parameter set associated with the first mode (as chosen based on the user’s selection via the mode selector switch, a mode of operation, referred to as “second mode of operation”, can be chosen, col. 6 lines 22-43; it is interpreted that “first” and “second” are only names for the modes, and not necessarily an indication of a requirement of order); selecting a second operational mode from the plurality of operational modes from the user interface provided as second user interface input to the controller during operation of the air blower (as chosen based on the user’s selection via the mode selector switch, another mode of operation, referred to as a “first mode of operation” is preprogrammed into the microcontroller 52), the second operational mode being a dynamic mode for dynamically adjusting the speed of the air blower in response to the data received by the controller from the at least one pressure sensor, such that the dynamic mode operates as a variable speed setting performed as the dynamic mode managed by the controller (one of the operational modes, referred to in name only as the “first mode of operation”, adjusts the pressure dynamically according to feedback from the pressure sensor, col. 4 lines 25-48; as interpreted by the examiner according to the instant application’s specification [0049], “first, second, third modes are just labels”);
and operating said air blower based on a second parameter set associated with the second operational mode in conjunction with available pressure readings from the at least one air pressure sensor (col. 4 lines 30-40, the controller operates using a breath responsive air supply to the user), such that the second parameter set is different from the first second parameter set (col. 6 lines 36-39, the two modes differ in that one operates based on pressure readings and the other mode maintains pressure between two set points); wherein the controller controls the air blower in response to said first user interface input (when selected by the user using the mode selector switch, the second mode of operation maintains pressure between two set points when that mode is selected by the user, col. 6 lines 36-42) and said second user interface input received from the user interface during operation of the air blower for the hood and mask assembly (when selected by the user using the mode selector switch, the first mode of operation dynamically adjusts the pressure based on pressure sensor readings, col. 4 lines 34-41), such that each of the plurality of operational modes are represented by a different set of operational parameters for the same hood and mask assembly (as described above, the first and second operational modes differ based on which is selected), such that the user interface input directs the controller to adjust the ongoing operation of the air blower between the first operational mode and the second operational mode of the plurality of operational modes (the mode of operation is chosen by the user and sets the controller to the desired mode of operation, col. 4 lines 20-23).
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 operation of Grove’s blower to include the features taught above by Blackwood in order to provide the option of a mode having greater efficiency where the blower provides air based on demand, and the option of maintaining pressure above a minimum for the safety of the wearer (Blackwood col. 1 lines 34-38, 43-47 and col. 2 lines 22-26 and 45-50).
The now modified device remains silent on the first operational mode being a static mode operating the air blower at a predefined set speed irrespective of any sensor reading including the air pressure measurement (emphasis added; Blackwood uses a thermistor to detect the fan speed in the static mode to ensure that the fan speed remains the same).
Hur teaches two operational modes for a personal air purifying respirator device which can be used in conjunction with a mask or a hood ([0031]) that uses a microcontroller ([0043], fig 22). The first mode adjusts the speed of a fan based on the respiration rate of a user. The respiration rate of the user can be monitored by a pressure sensor measuring the pressure in the system ([0044]). Hur offers the dynamically controlled flow mode as an alternative to a mode where a maximum flow of filtered air is provided at all times ([0043]), in which the maximum flow mode is supplied to the user irrespective of any sensor reading including the air pressure measurement, since in this alternate mode, the pressure sensor would be ignored. That is to say, Hur demonstrates that providing the user with a maximum flow of filtered air, which is understood to be a predefined set speed that does not use data from a pressure sensor, is a known alternative in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Grove’s first mode in which the first parameter set directs the controller to ignore the set pressure by disregarding the measured air pressure provided by the at least one pressure sensor, as taught by Hur, as Hur teaches that this operational mode is a known alternative option to a second mode of operation which provides a measured air pressure to control the operation of the device.
The now modified device remains silent on whether the mask connection is non-airtight such that the portion of air from the interior of the hood escapes through the mask connection during operation of the air blower. (Grove [0039] states that a leak is known in the mask seal, however, it is not explicitly known whether the leak exists between the face and the mask, or the hood and the mask).
Tischer teaches a hood with a respirator face mask (fig. 3, 22 [0033]) which has a separate hood (fig. 3, 24 [0033]) and mask (fig. 3, 26 [0033]) that connect at a rim (fig. 3, 60 [0037]) through hook and pile (fig. 5, 72, 74 [0041]) or alternatively a snap system (fig. 6, 78 [0042]), both of which are understood to be porous, since these connection types are understood to not be air-tight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the mask connection between the hood and the mask of Grove’s invention in the manner taught by Tischer, such that the connection is porous and non-airtight, which in turn means that a portion of air escapes from between the mask and the hood, since the connection taught by Tischer is protective against fumes, smoke, and heat (Tischer [0006], [0013]).
Regarding Claim 20, the modified Grove discloses a system according to claim 7, wherein the controller receives the user interface input to switch operation of the air blower back from the current first operational mode to the previous second operational mode (as modified by Blackwood, the mode selector switch allows the user to switch between various modes of operation).
Regarding Claim 21, the modified Grove discloses a method according to claim 16 further comprising the controller receiving the user interface input to switch operation of the air blower back from the current first operation mode to the previous second operational mode (as modified by Blackwood, the mode selector switch allows the user to switch between various modes of operation).
In an alternative rejection, claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Grove, Tischer, and Blackwood, further in view of Fabian et al. (WO 2016/157159 A1), hereafter Fabian.
Grove, Tischer, and Blackwood in combination teach the limitations of claims 1 and 16 as detailed above, and if there is any doubt that Hur teaches that a static operating mode operating an air blower at a predefined set speed irrespective of any sensor reading including the air pressure measurement, Fabian teaches a protective respirator (page 1, lines 16-17) having a controller-operated inlet fan (page 4 last line) which has at least two operating modes: a maximum throughput mode, in which the fan is at full power for inhale and exhale, and a maximum battery life mode (page 52, lines 12-24). In the maximum throughput mode, the fan (blower) operates at a maximum speed regardless of any sensor operation (page 52, third full para. and page 53, first full para., the user selects a maximum comfort level which forces the fans to remain running at a higher level of throughput).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blackwood’s static mode operating the air blower at a predefined set speed to operate irrespective of any sensor, as taught by Fabian, in order to provide a mode of maximum breathing comfort to a user (Fabian, page 52, first full para.).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Grove, Tischer, and Blackwood, 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 coupled to the air blower and configured to distribute air flow received from the blower inside the hood, such that the manifold includes a perforations positioned at a selected location along an arm of the manifold.
However, Walker teaches a respirator system (fig. 1, 10 [0052] line 1) that includes a manifold (fig. 2, manifold 20 [0053] line 2) coupled to the blower (fig. 1, manifold 20 is coupled to supply 42 [0055] lines 8-14) configured to distribute air flow received from the blower (figs. 1 and 2, [0054]) inside the hood (fig. 1, manifold 30 is inside the hood 12) such that the manifold includes perforations (fig. 2, perforations are air outlets 32a and 32b [0054] lines 14-15) positioned at a selected location along an arm of the manifold (32a is positioned at the end of arm 28a and 32b is positioned at the end of arm 28b of the manifold, fig. 2 [0055]; any number of openings may be provided on the manifold [0055] lines 17-20).
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 blower distribution means (which is undisclosed) 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 comprises a branching tube having a pair of arms to conduct air flow to predetermined areas of said hood (fig. 2, there are two arms 28a and 28b which conduct air to specific areas of the face [0055]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Grove, Tischer, and Blackwood, further in view of Carron (US 2012/0066819), hereafter Carron.
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Grove discloses a system according to claim 1, but is silent on at least one pressure sensor comprises a pressure sensor configured to sense a pressure inside the hood as the selected location. In the modified device, the pressure sensor is located at the outlet of the blower to detect a difference between ambient and the pressure at the outlet of the blower (Blackwood fig. 2 110, col. 4 lines 37--38).
However, Carron teaches a hood with a pressurized air source (abstract) at least one pressure sensor (fig. 1, indicator 44, [0061]) comprises a pressure sensor configured to sense a pressure inside the hood as the selected location ([0061] fig. 1, indicator 44 is a pressure sensor located inside the hood 26 and sensed pressure provided by air supply line 25). Indicator 44 can warn the wearer of a pressure drop ([0073-0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the location of the pressure sensor in the modified Grove’s device from the outlet of the blower to inside to hood as taught by Carron so that the sensor can warn of a pressure drop inside the hood; this may be beneficial, for instance, if there is a blockage between the blower outlet and the hood.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Grove, Tischer, and Blackwood, further in view of Barnes (US 7658891), hereafter Barnes.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Grove discloses a system according to claim 1, but is silent on the at least one pressure sensor comprises a pressure sensor configured to sense a pressure inside the mask as the selected location.
Barnes teaches an air purification system for HAZMAT suits (title) which includes a pressure sensor (704, fig. 21, col. 40 line 51) which is located inside a mask worn by an individual (col. 40 lines 51-53). This sensor monitors the respiratory rate of the individual wearing the mask and sends a controller 700 the information (col. 40 lines 45-50) in order to operate valves to deliver breathing air in anticipation of an inhalation (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 change the location of the pressure sensor to be located inside the mask in order to more closely detect and predict the breathing cycle of the wearer to provide breathing air for inhalation more efficiently as taught by Barnes.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Grove, Tischer, and Blackwood, further in view of Edwards (US 4971052), hereafter Edwards.
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Grove discloses a system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one pressure sensor comprises an outlet pressure sensor provided at a blower outlet (as modified by Blackwood, pressure sensor 110 is located at the blower outlet, fig. 2 and col. 4 lines 37-38). However, the modified Grove is silent on a pressure sensor comprising an inlet pressure sensor provided at blower inlet.
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 additionally place a pressure sensor at the inlet 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).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Grove, Tischer, and Blackwood, further in view of Knoblock (US 1410926), hereafter Knoblock.
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Grove discloses a system according to claim 1, but is silent on a relief strap is positioned adjacent to an air hose inlet of the blower to said hood.
Knoblock teaches a hood with an air hose (fig. 8, hood is helmet 60, page 3 first col. line 15, air hose is tube 1, line 18) using a relief strap adjacent (seen in fig. 8 and labeled in fig. 2 as strap loop 41, page 2, second col. lines 70) to the air hose inlet to the hood (fig. 8, 87, page 3 first col. line 16). The hose 1 can connect to a pump (page 1, first col. lines 50-55).
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 relief strap positioned adjacent to an air hose inlet of the blower to the hood in Grove’s invention as taught by Knoblock, as Knoblock’s relief strap 41 was an art-recognized means for attaching an air supply hose to a hood (page 2, second col. lines 68-77). Further, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that connecting the blower to the hood in Grove’s system via an air hose, since a hose connection is a known means of attachment between a blower and protective hood, as demonstrated by Knoblock’s invention as well as known to Grove ([0023] the blower system 2 can be mounted at any location that is convenient and comfortable).
Regarding Claim 14, the modified Grove discloses a system according to claim 1, but is silent on the system further comprising a relief strap connected to said hood, the relief strap for connecting material of said hood with an air hose coming from the blower in order to inhibit strain between said hood material introduced by a weight of the air hose.
However, Knoblock teaches a hood with an air hose (fig. 8, hood is helmet 60, page 3 first col. line 15, air hose is tube 1, line 18) using a relief strap adjacent (seen in fig. 8 and labeled in fig. 2 as strap loop 41, page 2, second col. lines 70) to the air hose inlet to the hood (fig. 8, 87, page 3 first col. line 16). The hose 1 can connect to a pump (page 1, first col. lines 50-55). The strap loop is part of a headband assembly (figs. 2 and 8) which reduce the effects of light shock and support the parts yieldingly (page 3, first col. lines 36-43; i.e. the relief strap inhibits strain introduced by the connection of the hose to the hood).
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 relief strap positioned adjacent to an air hose inlet of the blower to the hood in Grove’s invention as taught by Knoblock, as Knoblock’s relief strap 41 was an art-recognized means for attaching an air supply hose to a hood (page 2, second col. lines 68-77) for reducing strain due to the connection of a hose to a hood. Further, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that connecting the blower to the hood in Grove’s system via an air hose, since a hose connection is a known means of attachment between a blower and protective hood, as demonstrated by Knoblock’s invention as well as known to Grove ([0023] the blower system 2 can be mounted at any location that is convenient and comfortable).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gosweiler at al. (US 2005/0103343) discloses a blower respirator system that has one mode of operation which responds to pressure detected within the mask ([0027]) and another mode of operation in which the user can manually override the pressure sensor ([0030]).
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 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 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.
/SARA K TOICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785