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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 lines 3-4 recites “the user’s exhalation air trajectory” and is suggested to read --an exhalation air trajectory of the user-- in order to ensure proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 line 4 recites “the user’s exhalation air” and is suggested to read
--exhalation air of the user-- in order to ensure proper antecedent basis.
Claim 7 lines 5-6 recites “the user’s ambient environment” and is suggested to read --the ambient environment of the user-- in order to ensure proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “an air transport enclosure system configured for directing flow” in claim 1 line 10 and “an least one input member…for said delivery of filtered air” in claim 1 lines 20-21.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to the Applicant’s specification page 20 line 9 and page 21 lines 5-6, “an air transport enclosure system configured for directing flow” limitation in claim 1 line 10 is being interpreted as a rectangular duct, hose, or an equivalent structure. According to the Applicant’s specification page 20 lines 19-21, “an least one input member…for said delivery of filtered air” limitation in claim 1 lines 20-21 is being interpreted as an array of apertures, or an equivalent structure.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 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, the limitation “a portion” in line 18 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be the same as “an upper lens portion” or “a lower lens portion”, or if it is meant to be a new limitation.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations “receives” in line 1 and “producing” in line 3 are confusing, as these appear to be method steps while the claim is directed towards a device, and thus the scope of the claim is unclear.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations “an air pump” in line 6 and “said air pump” in lines 9 and 11 are confusing, as it is unclear whether these limitation are meant to be the same as or different from “an air pump” as originally claimed in claim 1. Moreover, the limitations “a control system” in line 9 and “said control system” in line 10 are confusing, as it is unclear whether these limitation are meant to be the same as or different from “a control system” as originally claimed in claim 1. Furthermore, the limitation “a power source” in lines 10-11 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be the same as or different from “a power source” as originally claimed in claim 1. Lastly, the limitation "the ambient environment" is recited in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukas (US 2005/0011516 A1) in view of McCoy et al. (US 2021/0128953 A1) and Daneshvar (US 5,666,671).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Lukas discloses a face shield system (gas mask and breathing equipment) (Fig. 1; abstract), said face shield system comprising a harness adapted to engage with a user's head (helmet and blower on a user’s head) (Fig. 1; para. [0012]), said harness comprising:
(a) a rear portion comprising an input filtration system module attached thereon (rear section having a filter 1 and radial flow compressor 2 attached) (Fig. 1; para. [0024]), said input filtration system module further comprising:
(i) an air pump for moving ambient unfiltered air through an input filter so to produce a delivery of filtered air (radial flow compressor 2 with motor 16 draws ambient air into filter 1 so as to filter the air to be delivered) (Figs. 1, 6; para. [0024]; para. [0030]);
(ii) a control system functionally connected to said air pump for controlling said delivery of filtered air, said control system further comprising a power source for motivating said air pump (motor control 14 for the radial flow compressor 2 is powered by battery 9) (Figs. 1, 6; para. [0024]; para. [0030]); and
(iii) an air transport enclosure system configured for directing flow of said delivery of filtered air exiting said input filtration system module (guide channel 3 receives the filtered air exiting from the filter 1 and radial flow compressor 2) (Fig. 1; para. [0024]); and
(b) a front portion comprising a lens system supported thereon configured to cover the user's nose, mouth, and eyes (front section having a visor 5 covering the nose, mouth, and eyes of a user) (Fig. 1; para. [0024]), said lens system comprising:
(i) a lens having an inner surface (visor 5 has an inner wall 4 which would have a surface facing the user’s face) (Fig. 1; para. [0024]), an upper lens portion for covering the user's eyes (upper portion of the visor 5 covering the user’s eyes) (Fig. 1; para. [0024]), a lower lens portion for covering the user's nose and mouth (lower portion of the visor 5 covering the user’s nose and mouth) (Fig. 1; para. [0024]); and
(ii) at least one air input member fluidly coupled into said lower breathing chamber for said delivery of filtered air, wherein said at least one air input member is fluidly connected to said air transport enclosure system (gas discharge openings 6 on the lower portion of visor 5 are fluidly connected to the guide channel 3 via air channel 31) (Fig. 1; paras. [0024-0025]).
Lukas does not disclose a sealing member disposed between said lower lens portion and said upper lens portion configured to form a lower breathing chamber and a visual chamber; wherein at least a portion of said lens is configured from a transparent material.
However, McCoy teaches a headgear device with a face shield (McCoy; abstract) including a sealing member configured to form a lower breathing chamber and a visual chamber (moisture barrier fabric 110 forms a lower chamber into which a user breathes and an upper chamber through which a user can see) (McCoy; Figs. 1-2; para. [0013]; para. [0016]); wherein at least a portion of said lens is configured from a transparent material (transparent face shield 102) (McCoy; Figs. 1-2; para. [0012]). Moreover, Daneshvar teaches a facial mask (Daneshvar; abstract) wherein the sealing member is disposed between said lower lens portion and said upper lens portion to form a lower breathing chamber and a visual chamber (seal 82 prevents exhaled air in the lower portion from reaching the upper eye portion) (Daneshvar; Figs. 1-2; col. 2, lines 35-41); wherein at least a portion of said lens is configured from a transparent material (frontal body portion is transparent) (Daneshvar; Figs. 1-2; abstract).
Therefore, 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 Lukas visor or lens to include a sealing member disposed between said lower lens portion and said upper lens portion configured to form a lower breathing chamber and a visual chamber; and wherein at least a portion of said lens is configured from a transparent material, as taught by McCoy and Daneshvar, for the purpose of preventing exhaled air reaching the eyes (McCoy, para. [0013]; Daneshvar, col. 2 lines 35-41) as well as for the purpose of allowing a user to see out (Daneshvar, abstract).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Lukas teaches wherein said sealing member is substantially permanently attached to said inner surface of said lens (moisture barrier fabric 110 is attached to the inner surface of face shield 102 by sewing, ultrasonic welding, or adhesives, and so is substantially permanent) (McCoy; para. [0015]).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Lukas teaches wherein said air transport enclosure system is selected from the group consisting of a hose, a tube, a rectangular duct, and any combination thereof (guide channel 3 is illustrated as a tube or rectangular duct) (Lukas; Fig. 1; para. [0024]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukas in view of McCoy and Daneshvar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hunter et al. (US 2017/0189727 A1).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the modified Lukas teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach wherein said lower breathing chamber receives said delivery of filtered air of sufficient magnitude so to produce a positive pressure environment within said breathing chamber, thereby producing an active air barrier configured to substantially block ambient environmental contaminants from entering said lower breathing chamber.
However, Hunter teaches a system for removing ultrafine particles for the air (Hunter; abstract) wherein said lower breathing chamber receives said delivery of filtered air of sufficient magnitude so to produce a positive pressure environment within said breathing chamber, thereby producing an active air barrier configured to substantially block ambient environmental contaminants from entering said lower breathing chamber (the enclosed space having a mask is connected to an air purifying respirator that delivers filtered air to the mask space at a positive pressure, thereby helping to prevent the outside unfiltered air from leaking inside the mask space) (Hunter; para. [0049]).
Therefore, 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 Lukas delivered air such that wherein said lower breathing chamber receives said delivery of filtered air of sufficient magnitude so to produce a positive pressure environment within said breathing chamber, thereby producing an active air barrier configured to substantially block ambient environmental contaminants from entering said lower breathing chamber, as taught by Hunter, for the purpose of preventing unfiltered air from leaking inside and for reducing the work of breathing while wearing the device (Hunter; para. [0049]).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukas in view of McCoy and Daneshvar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wilson et al. (US 2018/0311515 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Lukas teaches the invention as previously claimed, including wherein said input filter is fabricated from a particulate contaminant filtering material (filter 1 would be made out of a material capable of filtering out contaminant particulates) (Lukas; para. [0024]).
However, if the modified Lukas is not seen as definitively teaching wherein said input filter is fabricated from a particulate contaminant filtering material, Wilson teaches a system which protects a user from particles and provides clean air to breath (Wilson; abstract) wherein said input filter is fabricated from a High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) certified material and any combination thereof (HEPA filters for an air purification system) (Wilson; para. [0032]).
Therefore, 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 Lukas input filter to be fabricated from a High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) certified material, as taught by Wilson, for the purpose of ensuring the filter is made of a suitable material which is capable of removing contaminants from air (Wilson; para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Lukas teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach wherein said harness comprises at least one hinge, enabling the user to hingedly move said lens away from the user's face.
However, Wilson further teaches wherein said harness comprises at least one hinge, enabling the user to hingedly move said lens away from the user's face (hinge 304 joining the support system 305 to the protection pane so that the protection pane can be hingedly raised away from the user’s face) (Wilson; Fig. 3; para. [0052]).
Therefore, 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 Lukas harness to include at least one hinge, enabling the user to hingedly move said lens away from the user's face, as taught by Wilson, for the purpose of enabling a user to raise the protection pane without removing the head mounted device from the user’s head (Wilson; para. [0052]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukas in view of McCoy and Daneshvar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stackhouse (US 4,901,716).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the modified Lukas teaches the invention as previously claimed, including further comprising at least one output system module for the evacuation of the user's exhalation air from said lower breathing chamber, said output system module is functionally disposed onto said lower lens portion of said lens (on the lower portion of modified Lukas visor 5 is outlet opening 10 through which the user expires from the chamber) (Lukas, Fig. 1, para. [0024]; McCoy, Figs. 1-2; Daneshvar, Figs. 1-2), said output filtration system module comprising: (c) an exhalation air input port configured for receiving the user's exhalation air from said lower breathing chamber (Lukas outlet opening 10 is a port though which the user expires from chamber at the lower portion of the modified Lukas visor 5) (Lukas, Fig. 1, para. [0024]; McCoy, Figs. 1-2; Daneshvar, Figs. 1-2), but does not teach the at least one output system module is a filtration module for the evacuation and filtration of the user's exhalation air, said output filtration system module comprising: (a) an air pump for moving unfiltered exhalation air from said breathing chamber through an output filter, so to produce a delivery of filtered exhalation air into the ambient environment; (b) a control system functionally connected to said air pump for controlling said delivery of filtered exhalation air, said control system further comprising a power source for motivating said air pump.
However, Stackhouse teaches a mobile clean room helmet system (Stackhouse; abstract) wherein the at least one output system module is a filtration module for the evacuation and filtration of the user's exhalation air, said output filtration system module comprising: (a) an air pump for moving unfiltered exhalation air from said breathing chamber through an output filter, so to produce a delivery of filtered exhalation air into the ambient environment (the fan of the electric fan motor filter unit 30 sucks air from the helmet chamber, passes the air through a filter, and exhausts the air into the room environment) (Stackhouse; Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 46-56); (b) a control system functionally connected to said air pump for controlling said delivery of filtered exhalation air, said control system further comprising a power source for motivating said air pump (the motor of the electric fan motor filter unit 30 is driven by the battery pack 32; the motor controls the fan’s movement) (Stackhouse; Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 46-56; col. 5, lines 49-53).
Therefore, 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 Lukas at least one output system module to be a filtration module for the evacuation and filtration of the user's exhalation air, said output filtration system module comprising: (a) an air pump for moving unfiltered exhalation air from said breathing chamber through an output filter, so to produce a delivery of filtered exhalation air into the ambient environment; (b) a control system functionally connected to said air pump for controlling said delivery of filtered exhalation air, said control system further comprising a power source for motivating said air pump, as taught by Stackhouse, for the purpose of protecting a clean room environment from particulate contamination from a person by ensuring that air is properly filtered before entering the user’s environment (Stackhouse; col. 1, lines 4-13).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Lukas teaches further comprising said at least one output filtration system module that is functionally attached onto said lower lens portion of said lens such that said exhalation air input port substantially aligns with the user's exhalation air trajectory so to diametrically engage with the user's exhalation air, thereby streamlining the evacuation and filtration of the user's exhalation air into the user's ambient environment (the Lukas outlet opening 10 is attached to the lower portion of modified Lukas visor 5; as the Lukas outlet opening 10 is aligned near the user’s mouth, the user would functionally be able to have their exhaled air trajectory towards it and thereby streamline the evacuation and filtration of exhaled air into the ambient environment as functionally claimed) (Lukas, Fig. 1, para. [0024]; McCoy, Figs. 1-2; Daneshvar, Figs. 1-2; Stackhouse, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 46-56).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 3,311,922 by Bezzerides is considered to be relevant as it discloses a face shield with a breath deflector attached to an inside surface to deflect breath away from the user’s eyes.
US 2013/0091624 A1 by Czajka et al. is considered to be relevant as it discloses a hingedly attached face shield where air is blown upwards from below a user’s mouth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justine Yu can be reached at 571-272-4835. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785