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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 10-12 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 06/16/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/09/2026 (“Remarks”) have been fully considered.
The argument that Peng’s flow-in and flow-out directions are not positioned more than 40° relative to each other has been considered, but is not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Final Office action (mailed 10/30/2025) indicates that the flow-in and flow-out are “almost parallel” to each other; however, the applicant’s argument is not accurate. As cited in in Final Rejection mailed 10/30/2025,page 5, annotated Peng fig. 3, the air inlet direction, is indicated with arrow B into air inlet duct 21 via air inlet 2, and is substantially different than the air outlet direction, indicated with the annotated text and the included arrow in the figure. Please refer to the clarified rejection below, with the annotated figure highlighting the existing arrows in the figure showing the air intake direction (arrow B) and outlet from the air conveying channel. Applicant’s figure cites air flow through the filter body, rather than the cited air intake flow-in direction through the air intake.
The argument that Peng is not a respiratory protection system and is rather an air cleaning device is not persuasive, since Peng’s device acts as a respiratory protection system by supplying cleaned air to provide to the user. The applicant’s claims to not require any type of sealing connection or enclosed breathing space, as argued on page 7.
The argument that Hunter does not teach an angled airflow is not persuasive, since Hunter is relied upon to teach the concept of a removable air filter. Peng discloses the angled airflow.
The argument that Peng and Hunter teach away from an angled air flow is likewise not persuasive. Applicant does not cite a specific section of either reference that teaches away from changing the angle of the air flowing out from the filter from the intake direction. By Hunter indicating a preference for a parallel or unidirectional airflow through the figures, the prior art does not “teach away” from the flow-in direction and flow-out direction amounting to more than 40°. 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).” In addition, there does not appear to be any discussion in either reference of the change in flow angle from intake to output that would discourage a person of ordinary skill in the art from adopting the configuration disclosed by Peng.
The argument that Hunter does not teach a filter module with an attached air conveying channel, rather only a removable filter is not persuasive. Hunter is used to teach a removable air filtering cartridge having a filter fixed into an air-conveying channel, as cited below. Peng’s device discloses the change in air direction from the air intake to the air outflow from the air conveying channel.
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 1-2, 4-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Peng (CN 103868162 A1), hereafter Peng, in view of Hunter et al. (US 2017/0189727 A1), hereafter Hunter. A machine translation of Peng is relied upon to address claims.
Regarding Claim 1, Peng discloses a blower device for a respiratory protection system (fig. 1, title), with a fan for generating an airflow (fig. 3, 4, page 3 last para.), with at least one filter element (fig. 3, air purifying portion 6 employs a filter material, page 3 last para.) which is configured to be flowed through by the airflow (fig. 3, page 3 last para.), with a housing unit accommodating the fan and the at least one filter element (fig. 3, main body 1, page 3, para. starting with “FIG. 1”), and with an air conveying channel (see annotated fig. 3, the walls defining the air conveying channel are highlighted), which accommodates the filter element and is configured for guiding the airflow between the filter element and the fan (fig. 3, see arrows depicting air flow through the channel), wherein the air conveying channel is configured for a deflection of an airflow between the fan and the filter element (fig. 3, the direction of the airflow through the filter and air conveying channel changes as indicated by the arrows) in a way that an angle included by a flow-in direction of the airflow into the air conveying channel and a flow-out direction of the airflow out of the air conveying channel amounts to more than 40° (see annotated fig. 3 below, the air inlet direction B from air inlet 2 into air inlet duct 21, page 4, “Since the fan” para.; this angle is greater than 40°; though prior art drawings are not interpreted as depicting scale, unless specified, The description of thearticle pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonablyteach one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2125)), wherein the air conveying channel is a separate body that is arranged within the housing unit (fig. 3, the air conveying channel is defined as a separate section by walls), and wherein the filter element is arranged along the airflow fluidically upstream of the fan (fig. 3, the filter element 3 is arranged between the air inlet 2 and the fan 4), wherein the housing unit has a thickness d of less than 70 mm (page 2 11th para, the housing is at most 70mm), wherein the housing unit comprises a receptacle for a defined accommodation of the air conveying channel (fig. 3, the housing has a defined space in which the air conveying channel is positioned).
PNG
media_image1.png
722
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Peng is silent on the at least one filter element is fixedly integrated in the air conveying channel, wherein the air conveying channel is realized so as to be removable from the housing unit, and wherein the at least one filter element is connected to the air conveying channel at least partly by substance-to- substance bond.
However, Hunter teaches a filter element having an air conveying channel (fig. 7A, primary filter module 226 having filter 230 [0065] and air outlet port 232 [0068] that directs the filtered air). The filter module is removable from a housing (fig. 4, housing 206 and 208 [0063]) containing a fan (fig. 4, 224 [0068]). The filter element is fixedly integrated into the air conveying channel (fig. 7A [0094]) via a substance-to-substance bond ([0094] adhesive is used to bond the filter into the cartridge 308). This creates an area in the primary filter module (fig. 7A, clean air section 338 [0094]) that is isolated away from unfiltered air to allow filtered air to transition into an outlet port toward the user ([0094]). In addition, the filter element within the air conveying channel (fig. 7A, primary filter module 226) is removable from the housing (fig. 4) in order to replace the filter when it reaches the end of its lifespan, preventing a decrease in air pressure provided to the user ([0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peng’s air filtering device to bond the filter element (fig. 3, 6) to the air conveying channel (highlighted in annotated fig. 3 above) in order to isolate clean air from contaminated air (Hunter [0094]), which prevents contamination of the filtered air before it is delivered to the user for breathing. It additionally would have been obvious to make the now-modified Peng’s bonded filter element and air conveying channel removable from the housing for the benefit of being able to replace the filter at the end of its lifespan, as taught by Hunter (Hunter [0085]).
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Peng discloses a blower device according to claim 1, wherein the air conveying channel and the at least one filter element form a filter exchange module (as modified by Hunter, the filter module is exchangeable [0085]).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Peng discloses a blower device of claim 1, wherein the air conveying channel forms a filter frame of the at least one filter element (as modified by Hunter, the air conveying channel of Peng retains its shape in Peng and supports the filter 6 in the same manner as Hunter’s cartridge 308 as described in [0094]).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Peng discloses a blower device according to claim 1, wherein the angle included by the flow-in direction of the airflow (Peng fig. 3, air intake direction at arrow B, see annotated fig. above) into the air conveying channel and the flow-out direction of the airflow out of the air conveying channel (Peng fig. 3, the arrows of the air flow leaving the filter through the air conveying channel is substantially different from the flow entering the filter) amounts to more than 60° (see annotated fig. 3 above, the air intake direction at arrow marked B versus the arrow of the air leaving the air conveying channel is greater than 60°).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Peng discloses a blower device according to claim 1, wherein the air conveying channel has an inlet opening and an outlet opening, an opening cross section of the inlet opening being substantially larger than an opening cross section of the outlet opening (see annotated Peng fig. 3 below, the inlet opening of the air conveying channel 21, page 4, third full para., is larger than the outlet; though prior art drawings are not interpreted as depicting scale, unless specified, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2125.))
PNG
media_image2.png
718
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Peng discloses a blower device according to claim 1, but is silent on comprising a further filter element, which is situated next to the fan and which is fixedly integrated in the air conveying channel.
However, Hunter teaches the use of two filter elements within the filter module (fig. 6B, filter module 226 has two filter elements 230 [0094]). This allows for increased surface area of the filter media, which improves filtration (Hunter [0096]).
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 Peng’s filter element and air conveying channel by including an additional filter element as taught by Hunter in order to increase the filtration surface area and filtering ability of the filtering device.
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Peng discloses a blower device according to claim 7, wherein the air conveying channel, the filter element and further filter element form a filter exchange module (Hunter fig. 6B, the filter module 226), in particular an alternative filter exchange module (as modified by Hunter, the filter module is exchangeable [0085]).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified Peng discloses a blower device according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the fan is configured to create a volume flow of the airflow of at least 50 l/min and maximally 250 l/min.
However, Hunter teaches a respiratory protective system (abstract, fig. 1) in which the blower rate is between 50-300 liters per minute ([0056]). This rate protects the user from leaks in the mask and provides a comfortable breathing experience ([0056]).
However, Hunter does not explicitly disclose the airflow of at least 50 l/min and maximally 250 l/min.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the volume of the air flow from the airflow of at least 50 l/min and maximally 250 l/min to 50L/min-300 L/min, as the applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see page 8 first para. and page 11 last para.) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Peng discloses a respiratory protection system, in particular a blower respiratory system (fig. 1, page 1 “summary of the invention” para.), with a blower device according to claim 1, but is silent on at least one mouth protection device.
Hunter teaches the use of a face protection device in the form of a face mask (fig. 1, mask 104 [0050]) attached to the air purification device (figs. 1 and 4, 102 [0050]) via a hose (fig. 1, 108 [0051]) which provides a closed breathing space to deliver filtered air to the user ([0050]) which prevents the user from inhaling viruses and pathogens ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a mask connected to the air purification outlet in Peng’s device, as taught by Hunter, to additionally prevent the user from inhaling viruses and pathogens in the surrounding environment by covering the mouth and providing a closed space for the purified air.
Regarding Claim 12, the modified Peng discloses a respiratory protection system according to claim 11, but is silent on wherein the at least one blower device is configured to create a positive pressure in the mouth protection device. Peng discloses an air flow (page 2, para. 14) but does not discuss a pressure.
Hunter teaches the air filtration system delivers positive pressure to the mask, which increases comfort during breathing and protects from contamination from leaks around the mask ([0056]).
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 output of Peng’s fan to generate a positive pressure in the mouth protection device as taught by Hunter, for the benefit of comfortable breathing and protecting the user from leaks around the edges of the mask.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12017097 discloses a similar device in which airflow is deflected between the fan and the filter element.
US 2013/0014751 A1 fig. 2 shows an intake direction having a significantly different direction from an output direction
US 2013/0306072 A1 fig. 5-12
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
Prosecution Insights