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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s claim to priority to National Stage Application No. PCT/US2021/026044 filed April 06, 2021, to Provisional Application No. 63/006457 filed April 7, 2020, to Provisional Application No. 63/052101 filed July 20, 2020 and to Provisional Application No 63/062374, filed August 06, 2020.
The limitations in claims 1, 3-4, 5, 7, 12-13, and 20 have been introduced in the Provisional Application No 63/062374, filed August 06, 2020 in comparison with Provisional Application No. 63/006457 filed April 7, 2020 such as the first and second filter media disposed within the recess of the filter base, an acoustic tube, and an air flow sensor with a telltale assembly, and the arrangement of the battery.
The claims 1, 2-11 (by virtue of dependency to claim 1), 12, and 13-20 (by virtue of dependency to claim 12) appear to have a different effective filing date than the remainder of the claim listing, as the earlier provisional applications do not include the features or mentioned previously and thus is not entitled to the earliest effective filing date. Therefore, claims 1-20 are given the earliest effective filing date as the Provisional Application No 63/062374, filed August 06, 2020.
Status of Claims
This present office action is responsive to the Application filed on October 04, 2022. As directed, claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 05/26/2023 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the reference, “MOPEC” under NPL has not been provided with publication year and not legible condition. Thus, it has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Figs 13A-D, 14A-C, 17A are photographs, which are not ordinarily permitted in utility applications. See MPEP 608.02(V)(b)(1).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11, 13-14, and 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “the first and second filter media” in ln 6 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the first filter media and the second filter media--
Claim 1 recites, “the front region” in ln 13 which Examiner suggest amending to read --a front region--Claims 1-11 are objected by the dependency to claim 1.
Claim 6 recites, “a front region” in 2 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the front region-- as it is introduced in claim 1.
Claim 8 recites, “at least a portion” in ln 1 which Examiner suggest amending to read --at least the portion-- as it is introduced in claim 1.
Claim 13 recites, “a second end” in ln 3 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the second end-- as it is introduced in claim 12.
Claim 14 recites, “a front region” in 2 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the front region-- as it is introduced in claim 12.
Claim 17 recites, “a back region” in 2 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the back region-- as it is introduced in claim 12.
Claim 18 recites, “an inner surface of a back region” in 1-2 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the inner surface of the back region-- as it is introduced in claim 12.
Claim 19 recites, “an inner surface” in 1-2 and “an external surface” in ln 2-3 which Examiner suggest amending to read --the inner surface-- and --the external surface-- as it is introduced in claim 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the same filter media" in ln 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is dependent to claim 2.
For examination purposes, it is interpreted as being dependent on claim 3 which introduces “a same filter media”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the at least one light" in ln 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is dependent to claim 12.
For examination purposes, it is interpreted as being dependent on claim 14
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, and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomes et al. (US 20210308499 A1; Examiner notes that cited document includes disclosure with differing effective filing dates. The particular limitation relied upon in the present rejection are supported as of April 06, 2020) in view of Verburg et al. (US 20200360736 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gomes et al. discloses, a PAPR kit (an assembly of Figure 5) comprising:
a hood (a barrier subsystem 102, Fig 5), the hood comprising a shroud (a barrier hood 116, Fig 5); a PAPR unit (an air delivery subsystem 104, Fig 5), the PAPR unit including a blower (an internal fan mechanism 126, Fig 22) and a filter assembly (one or more filters 140, Fig 22),
a head suspension frame (one or more flexible straps, 110 of 102, Fig 2), the head suspension frame being adjustable around the circumference of a user's head (¶0048, “one or more flexible straps 110 arranged to wrap around the head of a user to secure the barrier subsystem 102 in place relative to the user's field of view and breathing area”),
the head suspension frame disposed within a top region of the hood (the one or more flexible straps are disposed on the top region of the barrier subsystem as shown in Fig 5);
a flexible hose (an air delivery pipe 114, Fig 2), the flexible hose comprising a first end (114 attached to the 118 as shown in Fig 2) and a second end (114 attached to the proximity of the visor as shown in Fig 2), the second end of the flexible hose being free and disposed near the front region of the hood (Fig 2; ¶0053, “The air delivery pipe 114 may be secured in place relative to the visor portion 106 via any suitable securing means such as an elastic strap….a hook-and-loop fabric strip”; Examiner interprets “being free” as to removably attached or not permanently affixed as BRI), the first end coupled to a portion of the blower (114 attached to the 118 as shown in Fig 2) of the PAPR unit; and
at least one battery pack (a power source 128, Fig 22; ¶0061, “powered by a power source 128 such as a rechargeable battery pack).
While Gomes et al. discloses that the various features and embodiments can be combined with features illustrated inn other figures (¶0044) with respect to the currently relied upon embodiment and the arrangement of the blower is coupled to the portion of the filter, the currently relied embodiment of Fig 2 does not specifically discloses, the filter base comprising a top end and a bottom end, the top end of the filter base including a recess, at least a portion of the blower coupled to a portion of the bottom end of the filter base.
However, in a separate embodiment, Gomes et al. discloses, a filter base comprising a top end and a bottom end (see annotation below, Fig 23; Examiner interprets the top and the bottom as to merely opposite ends in which the top end corresponds near or in proximity of or on the air inlet as shown in Fig 15, 17 and 19 of the instant application), the top end of the filter base including a recess (see annotation below, Fig 23), the filter media (640, Fig 23) disposed within the recess, at least a portion of the blower coupled to a portion of the bottom end of the filter base (see annotation below, Fig 23).
PNG
media_image1.png
601
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 PAPR system to include the filter base comprising a top end and a bottom end, the top end of the filter base including a recess, at least a portion of the blower coupled to a portion of the bottom end of the filter base as taught by the separate embodiment of Gomes et al.
While Gomes et al. discloses, the PAPR system is provided with one or more air filters to remove particulates and other contaminants (¶0068-69, 0103), Gomes et al. is silent on the arrangement of two filter media.
However, Verburg et al. which is analogous art to the claimed invention for a portable air treatment device to supply filtered air to a person where the device comprises an air pump to provide a flow of air, a filter device to filter the flow of air (abstract) within the housing (2, Fig 2), teaches the arrangement of two filter medias as shown in the Fig 1 where the filter base (4, Fig 1), a first filter media (6’, Fig 1) and a second filter media (6’’, Fig 1) are placed in order to remove particles and gaseous species based on the specific contaminants (¶0106-0107).
Therefore, 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 filter base of Gomes et al. to include the arrangement of the two filter medias as taught by Verburg et al. in order to remove particles and gaseous species based on the specific contaminants (¶0106-0107).
Regarding claim 3, Gomes et al. in view of Verburg discloses the kit of claim 1 as discussed above.
Gomes et al. further discloses, wherein the first filter media and the second filter media comprise a same filter media (¶0068-0069, “air filters are provided as a pleated high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) type filter”).
Regarding claim 4, Gomes et al. in view of Verburg discloses the kit of claim 1 as discussed above.
Gomes et al. further discloses, wherein the same filter media comprises a HEPA filter (¶0068-0069).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomes et al. (US 20210308499 A1; Examiner notes that cited document includes disclosure with differing effective filing dates. The particular limitation relied upon in the present rejection are supported as of April 06, 2020) in view of Verburg et al. (US 20200360736 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kota et al. (US 20230032878 A1; Examiner notes that cited document includes disclosure with differing effective filing dates. The particular limitation relied upon in the present rejection are supported as of April 03, 2020).
Regarding claim 2, Gomes et al. in view of Verburg discloses the kit of claim 1 as discussed above.
While Gomes et al. discloses that the hood with the visor is disposable (¶0054) and the visor portion can be cleaned and disinfected (¶0051), Gomes et al. does not specifically discloses the PAPR kit is sterilizable and disposable.
However, Kota et al. which is analogous art to the claimed invention for the system comprising a hood and a head suspension and fan and the filter for removing contamination (¶0031; Fig 1A-B), teaches that the assembly are sterilizable and disposable (¶0041, “entire PRIS may be disposable, e.g., may be single use… the entire PRIS may be made of materials which are able to be sterilized using any known medical-grade sterilization process”) in order to prevent/reduce contamination as well as re-used as needed after sterilization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gomes et al. to include means for sterilizable and disposable as taught by Kota et al. in order to prevent/reduce contamination as well as re-used as needed after sterilization.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomes et al. (US 20210308499 A1; Examiner notes that cited document includes disclosure with differing effective filing dates. The particular limitation relied upon in the present rejection are supported as of April 06, 2020) in view of Verburg et al. (US 20200360736 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mansour et al. (US 20130284170 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Gomes et al. in view of Verburg discloses the kit of claim 1 as discussed above.
Gomes et al. does not specifically discloses an acoustic tube to dampen noise and vibration of the blower, at least a portion of the acoustic tube coupled to the flexible hose and positioned adjacent to the first end of the flexible hose.
However, Mansour et al. which is analogous art to the claimed invention in the respiratory field, teaches an acoustic tube (115, Figs 1-2) to dampen noise and vibration of the blower (¶0032-0034, implies that the 115 is capable of reducing noise. Examiner notes that the based on its structure, the sound-reducing tube of Mansour is capable of reducing the vibration of the blower), at least a portion of the acoustic tube coupled to the flexible hose and positioned adjacent to the first end of the flexible hose (115 is connected to the flexible hose 110 as shown in Fig 2) in order to reduce the sound level from the gas delivery system (¶0019-0021).
Therefore, 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 kit of Gomes et al. to include an acoustic tube to dampen noise and vibration of the blower, at least a portion of the acoustic tube coupled to the flexible hose and positioned adjacent to the first end of the flexible hose as taught by Mansour et al. in order to reduce the sound level from the gas delivery system (¶0019-0021).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomes et al. (US 20210308499 A1; Examiner notes that cited document includes disclosure with differing effective filing dates. The particular limitation relied upon in the present rejection are supported as of April 06, 2020) in view of Verburg et al. (US 20200360736 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jascomb et al. (US 20200060375 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Gomes et al. in view of Verburg discloses the kit of claim 1 as discussed above.
Gomes et al. does not specifically discloses, wherein the PAPR kit further comprises at least one light, the at least one light disposed within a front region of the hood adjacent to a wearer's peripheral vision.
However, Jascomb et al. which is analogous art to the claimed invention for a personal protection and ventilation system (abstract) and the head suspension frame (190, Fig 1), the flexible hose (184, Fig 1) and the blower of the PAPR unit (Fig 7) teaches, at least one light (188, Fig1), the at least one light (188 is disposed in the front region as shown in Fig 1; ¶0015) disposed within a front region of the hood adjacent to a wearer's peripheral vision in order to provide illumination to the desired area to the user (¶0060) as a known method.
Therefore, 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 kit of Gomes et al. to include at least one light, the at least one light disposed within a front region of the hood adjacent to a wearer's peripheral vision as taught by Jascomb et al. in order to provide illumination to the desired area to the user (¶0060).
Claims 1, 3-4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanDerWoude et al. (US 20150375019 A1) in view of Temmesfeld (WO 2021219608 A1) and Verburg et al. (US 20200360736 A1).
Regarding claim 1, VanDerWoude et al. discloses, a PAPR kit (assembly of Fig 1) comprising:
a hood (400, Fig 1), the hood comprising a shroud (410, Fig 1; ¶0072);
a PAPR unit (a ventilation assembly 150, Fig 4), the PAPR unit including a blower (211, Fig 5)
a head suspension frame (a helmet 100, Fig 4), the head suspension frame being adjustable around the circumference of a user's head (claim 6, “a flexible shell shaped to be fitted over the head of an individual”),
the head suspension frame disposed within a top region of the hood (¶0010);
a flexible hose (a nozzle assembly 160, Fig 4; ¶0060), the flexible hose comprising a first end and a second end, the second end of the flexible hose being free and disposed near the front region of the hood, the first end coupled to a portion of the blower of the PAPR unit (¶0060, implies that the first end is coupled to the blower and the second end is disposed near the front region as shown in Figs 4, 8); and
at least one battery pack (a battery pack 390, Fig 9; ¶0067-0068).
While VanDerWoude et al. discloses the filter section and the ultraviolet light section (¶0010, 0065-0066) to purify air, VanDerWoude et al. does not specifically discloses, a filter assembly, the filter assembly comprising a filter base, a first filter media and a second filter media, the filter base comprising a top end and a bottom end, the top end of the filter base including a recess, the first and second filter media disposed within the recess, at least a portion of the blower coupled to a portion of the bottom end of the filter base.
However, Temmesfeld which is analogous art to the claimed invention for the improvement of the surgical helmet (PG 3, ln 27-37) of VanDerWoude et al. (Stryker Corp) which consists of an inner helmet skeleton with an electric fan to draw air in through the material of the hood (PG 7, ln 5-15, “the Flyte helmet market by Stryker Corporation is one such surgical helmet and is widely used for preventing transmission of infectious particles), teaches the air supply setup for adapting a surgical helmet to use a filtered supply in order to handling of contagious patient such as COVID-19 or similar disease (PG 8, ln 17-24), the arrangement of the fan (9, Fig 5a) and a filter assembly, the filter assembly comprising a filter base (6, Fig 5a), a first filter media and a second filter media (7, Fig 5a; PG 5, ln 7-18, “the filter adaptor bracket may be configured for use with any suitable air filter, such as an air filter of medical grade with at least the same filtering capacity as in FFP3, such as a HEPA-13 filter”; PG 6, ln 5, “also comprise one or more air filters”; claim 17), the filter base comprising a top end and a bottom end (Fig 5a), the top end of the filter base including a recess (where the filters are located is the top end having a recess as shown in Fig 5a), the first filter media and the second filter media disposed within the recess (7, Fig 5a; PG 6, ln 5, “also comprise one or more air filters”; claim 17), at least a portion of the blower coupled to a portion of the bottom end of the filter base (where fan is coupled to the bottom end of the filter base as shown in Fig 5a).
Therefore, 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 filter assembly of the VanDerWoude et al. to include a filter assembly, the filter assembly comprising a filter base, a first filter media and a second filter media, the filter base comprising a top end and a bottom end, the top end of the filter base including a recess, the first and second filter media disposed within the recess, at least a portion of the blower coupled to a portion of the bottom end of the filter base as taught by Temmesfeld in order to improve the existing surgery helmet into efficacious antiviral protection with simple modification to be used during pandemic or similar disease (PG 4, ln 19-34; PG 8, ln 17-24).
While modified VanDerWoude et al. discloses, the PAPR system is provided with one or more air filters (Temmesfeld: 7, Fig 5a; PG 5, ln 7-18; PG 6, ln 5; claim 17), modified VanDerWoude et al. is silent on the arrangement of two filter media.
However, Verburg et al. which is analogous art to the claimed invention for a portable air treatment device to supply filtered air to a person where the device comprises an air pump to provide a flow of air, a filter device to filter the flow of air (abstract) within the housing (2, Fig 2), teaches the arrangement of two filter medias as shown in the Fig 1 where the filter base (4, Fig 1), a first filter media (6’, Fig 1) and a second filter media (6’’, Fig 1) are placed in order to remove particles and gaseous species based on the specific contaminants (¶0106-0107).
Therefore, 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 filter base of VanDerWoude et al. to include the arrangement of the two filter medias as taught by Verburg et al. in order to remove particles and gaseous species based on the specific contaminants (¶0106-0107).
Regarding claim 3, VanDerWoude et al. in view of Temmesfeld and Verburg discloses the kit of claim 1 as discussed above.
Modified VanDerWoude et al. further discloses, wherein the first filter media and the second filter media comprise a same filter media (Temmesfeld: 7, Fig 5a; PG 5, ln 7-18; PG 6, ln 5; claim 17).
Regarding claim 4, VanDerWoude et al. in view of Temmesfeld and Verburg discloses the kit of claim 3 as discussed above.
Modified VanDerWoude et al. further discloses, wherein the same filter media comprises a HEPA filter (Temmesfeld: 7, Fig 5a; PG 5, ln 7-18; PG 6, ln 5; claim 17).
Regarding claim 8, VanDerWoude et al. in view of Temmesfeld and Verburg discloses the kit of claim 1 as discussed above.
Modified VanDerWoude et al. further discloses, wherein at least a portion of the blower (VanDerWoude et al.: 211, Fig 5 in view Fig 1 where the blower is disposed within the hood/helmet) of the PAPR unit is disposed within the hood and downstream from the filter assembly of the PAPR unit (Temmesfeld: 7, Fig 5a).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomes et al. (US 20210308499 A1; Examiner notes that cited document includes disclosure with differing effective filing dates. The particular limitation relied upon in the present rejection are supported as of April 06, 2020) in view of Verburg et al. (US 20200360736 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wilkinson et al. (US 20220386724 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Gomes et al. in view of Verburg discloses the kit of claim 1 as discussed above.
Gomes et al. does not specifically discloses, wherein at least a portion of the PAPR kit further comprises a pathogen inactivation coating, the pathogen inactivation coating includes a photoactivation coating, a germicidal coating, or a disinfectant coating.
However, Wilkinson et al. which is analogous art to the claimed invention for the antimicrobial fabric in the healthcare industry (¶0001) teaches, the fabric or material incorporated with photosensitizing means such as coated, impregnated or dyed (¶0026) and to be selected from the structural classes of phenothiazines - Methylene Blue which is well known to destroy microorganism (¶0029-0030) and to be applied in medical gloves, facemasks, gowns, and other apparels (¶0030; Examiner notes that the claim limitation does not specify the component to be coated, so that Examiner interprets that the apparels or any other protection to be worn can be part of the kit in broadest reasonable interpretation).
Therefore, 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 kit of Gomes et al. to include at least a portion of the PAPR kit further comprises a pathogen inactivation coating, the pathogen inactivation coating includes a photoactivation coating, a germicidal coating, or a disinfectant coating as taught by Wilkinson et al. in order to obtain antimicrobial protection (¶0029-0030)
Regarding claim 10, Gomes et al. in view of Verburg and Wilkinson et al. discloses the kit of claim 9 as discussed above.
Modified Gomes et al. further discloses, wherein the photoactivation coating comprises phenothiazine dye or a phenothiazine derivative (Wilkinson et al.: ¶0029-0030).
Regarding claim 11, Gomes et al. in view of Verburg and Wilkinson et al. discloses the kit of claim 10 as discussed above.
Modified Gomes et al. further discloses, wherein the phenothiazine derivative comprises methylene blue (Wilkinson et al.: ¶0029-0030).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomes et al. (US 20210308499 A1; Examiner notes that cited document includes disclosure with differing effective filing dates. The particular limitation relied upon in the present rejection are supported as of April 06, 2020).
Regarding claim 12, Gomes et al. discloses, a PAPR kit (an assembly of Figure 5) comprising: a PAPR unit (an air delivery subsystem 104, Fig 5), the PAPR unit including a filter assembly (one or more filters 140, Fig 22), and at least one blower (an internal fan mechanism 126, Fig 22) and
a hood (a barrier subsystem 102, Fig 5), the hood comprising a shroud (a barrier hood 116, Fig 5), the hood further comprising a front region, a back region, a top region, a bottom region, an inner surface and an external surface (the front region, the back region, the top region, a bottom region, and the inner surface and the external surface from the perspective of 102 as shown in Fig 5)
a head suspension frame (one or more flexible straps, 110 of 102, Fig 2), the head suspension frame being adjustable around the circumference of a user's head (¶0048, “one or more flexible straps 110 arranged to wrap around the head of a user to secure the barrier subsystem 102 in place relative to the user's field of view and breathing area”),
the head suspension frame disposed within a top region of the hood (the one or more flexible straps are disposed on the top region of the barrier subsystem as shown in Fig 5);
a flexible hose (an air delivery pipe 114, Fig 2), the flexible hose comprising a first end (114 attached to the subsystem of 102 as shown in Fig 2) and a second end (114 attached to the 118 as shown in Fig 2), the second end being coupled to the PAPR unit and the first end coupled to the hood (as shown in Fig 2); and
at least one battery pack (a power source 128, Fig 22; ¶0061, “powered by a power source 128 such as a rechargeable battery pack).
While Gomes et al. discloses that the various features and embodiments can be combined with features illustrated inn other figures (¶0044) with respect to the currently relied upon embodiment and the arrangement of the blower is coupled to the portion of the filter, the currently relied embodiment of Fig 2 does not specifically discloses, the filter base comprising a top end and a bottom end, the top end of the filter base including a recess, at least a portion of the blower coupled to a portion of the bottom end of the filter base.
However, in a separate embodiment, Gomes et al. discloses, a filter base comprising a top end and a bottom end (see annotation below, Fig 23; Examiner interprets the top and the bottom as to merely opposite ends in which the top end corresponds near or in proximity of or on the air inlet as shown in Fig 15, 17 and 19 of the instant application), the top end of the filter base including a recess (see annotation below, Fig 23), the filter media (640, Fig 23) disposed within the recess, at least a portion of the blower coupled to a portion of the bottom end of the filter base (see annotation below, Fig 23).
PNG
media_image1.png
601
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 PAPR system to include the filter base comprising a top end and a bottom end, the top end of the filter base including a recess, at least a portion of the blower coupled to a portion of the bottom end of the filter base as taught by the separate embodiment of Gomes et al.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomes et al. (US 20210308499 A1; Examiner notes that cited document includes disclosure with differing effective filing dates. The particular limitation relied upon in the present rejection are supported as of April 06, 2020) in view of Madaus (machine translation of DE 10021111)
Regarding claim 13, Gomes et al. discloses the kit of claim 12 as discussed above.
Gomes et al. does not specifically discloses an acoustic tube to dampen noise and vibration of the blower, at least a portion of the acoustic tube disposed between the first end and a second end of the flexible hose.
However, Madaus which is analogous art to the claimed invention for delivery of respiration gas, teaches an acoustic tube (a foam 15, Fig 2) to dampen noise and vibration of the blower (PG 3, ln 17-32, implies that the muffler is made of flexible pipe and the foam material to absorb sound which Examiner notes that the foam material can reduce vibration along with the sound), at least a portion of the acoustic tube disposed between the first end and a second end of the flexible hose (PG 3, ln 17- PG 4, 13, implies that the hose can be made with the foam layer to absorb sound from delivery tubing).
Therefore, 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 flexible tubing of Gomes et al. to include the foam layer to dampen noise and vibration of the blower as taught by Madaus in order to absorb sound.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomes et al. (US 20210308499 A1; Examiner notes that cited document includes disclosure with differing effective filing dates. The particular limitation relied upon in the present rejection are supported as of April 06, 2020) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Jascomb et al. (US 20200060375 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Gomes et al. discloses the kit of claim 12 as discussed above.
Gomes et al. does not specifically discloses, wherein the PAPR kit further comprises at least one light, the at least one light disposed within a front region of the hood adjacent to a wearer's peripheral vision.
However, Jascomb et al. which is analogous art to the claimed invention for a personal protection and ventilation system (abstract) and the head suspension frame (190, Fig 1), the flexible hose (184, Fig 1) and the blower of the PAPR unit (Fig 7) teaches, at least one light (188, Fig1), the at least one light (188 is disposed in the front region as shown in Fig 1; ¶0015) disposed within a front region of the hood adjacent to a wearer's peripheral vision in order to provide illumination to the desired area to the user (¶0060) as a known method.
Therefore, 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 kit of Gomes et al. to include at least one light, the at least one light disposed within a front region of the hood adjacent to a wearer's peripheral vision as taught by Jascomb et al. in order to provide illumination to the desired area to the user (¶0060).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gomes et al. (US 20210308499 A1; Examiner notes that cited document includes disclosure with differing effective filing dates. The particular limitation relied upon in the present rejection are supported as of April 06, 2020) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Wilkinson et al. (US 20220386724 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Gomes et al. discloses the kit of claim 12 as discussed above.
Gomes et al. does not specifically discloses, wherein the hood comprising a pathogen coating, the pathogen coating includes a phenothiazine dye or a phenothiazine derivative.
However, Wilkinson et al. which is analogous art to the claimed invention for the antimicrobial fabric in the healthcare industry (¶0001) teaches, the fabric or material incorporated with photosensitizing means such as coated, impregnated or dyed (¶0026) and to be selected from the structural classes of phenothiazines - Methylene Blue which is well known to destroy microorganism (¶0029-0030) and to be applied in medical gloves, facemasks, gowns, and other apparels (¶0030; Examiner notes that the claim limitation does not specify the component to be coated, so that Examiner interprets that the apparels or any other protection to be worn can be part of the kit in broadest reasonable interpretation).
Therefore, 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 kit of Gomes et al. to include wherein the hood comprising a pathogen coating, the pathogen coating includes a phenothiazine dye or a phenothiazine derivative as taught by Wilkinson et al. in order to obtain antimicrobial protection (¶0029-0030)
Claims 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanDerWoude et al. (US 20150375019 A1) in view of Temmesfeld (WO 2021219608 A1).
Regarding claim 12, VanDerWoude et al. discloses, a PAPR kit (assembly of Fig 1) comprising: a PAPR unit (a ventilation assembly 150, Fig 4), the PAPR unit including at least one blower (211, Fig 5) and
a hood (400, Fig 1), the hood comprising a shroud (410, Fig 1; ¶0072), the hood further comprising a front region, a back region, a top region, a bottom region, an inner surface and an external surface (the front region, the back region, the top region, a bottom region, and the inner surface and the external surface from the perspective of 400 as shown in Fig 1)
a head suspension frame (a helmet 100, Fig 4), the head suspension frame being adjustable around the circumference of a user's head (claim 6, “a flexible shell shaped to be fitted over the head of an individual”),
the head suspension frame disposed within a top region of the hood (¶0010);
a flexible hose (a nozzle assembly 160, Fig 4; ¶0060),
the flexible hose comprising a first end (one end of 160 is in contact with the hood when worn as shown in Fig 1 in view of Fig 2) and a second end, the second end being coupled to the PAPR unit (¶0060, implies that the first end is coupled to the blower) and the first end coupled to the hood (one end of 160 is in contact with the hood when worn as shown in Fig 1 in view of Fig 2); and
at least one battery pack (a battery pack 390, Fig 9; ¶0067-0068).
While VanDerWoude et al. discloses the filter section and the ultraviolet light section (¶0010, 0065-0066) to purify air, VanDerWoude et al. does not specifically discloses, a filter assembly, the filter assembly comprising a filter base and at least one filter media, the filter base comprising a top end and a bottom end, the top end of the filter base including a recess, the at least one filter media disposed within the recess, at least a portion of the blower coupled to a portion of the bottom end of the filter base.
However, Temmesfeld which is analogous art to the claimed invention for the improvement of the surgical helmet (PG 3, ln 27-37) of VanDerWoude et al. (Stryker Corp) which consists of an inner helmet skeleton with an electric fan to draw air in through the material of the hood (PG 7, ln 5-15, “the Flyte helmet market by Stryker Corporation is one such surgical helmet and is widely used for preventing transmission of infectious particles), teaches the air supply setup for adapting a surgical helmet to use a filtered supply in order to handling of contagious patient such as COVID-19 or similar disease (PG 8, ln 17-24), the arrangement of the fan (9, Fig 5a) and a filter assembly, the filter assembly comprising a filter base (6, Fig 5a), a at least one filter media (7, Fig 5a; PG 5, ln 7-18; PG 6, ln 5; claim 17), the filter base comprising a top end and a bottom end (Fig 5a), the top end of the filter base including a recess (where the filters are located is the top end having a recess as shown in Fig 5a), at least one filter media disposed within the recess (7, Fig 5a; PG 6, ln 5; claim 17), at least a portion of the blower coupled to a portion of the bottom end of the filter base (where fan is coupled to the bottom end of the filter base as shown in Fig 5a).
Therefore, 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 filter assembly of the VanDerWoude et al. to include a filter assembly, the filter assembly comprising a filter base and at least one filter media, the filter base comprising a top end and a bottom end, the top end of the filter base including a recess, the at least one filter media disposed within the recess, at least a portion of the blower coupled to a portion of the bottom end of the filter base as taught by Temmesfeld in order to improve the existing surgery helmet into efficacious antiviral protection with simple modification to be used during pandemic or similar disease (PG 4, ln 19-34; PG 8, ln 17-24).
Regarding claim 17, VanDerWoude et al. in view of Temmesfeld discloses the kit of claim 12 as discussed above.
Modified VanDerWoude et al. further discloses, wherein the PAPR unit disposed in a back region of the hood (VanDerWoude et al.: 211, Fig 5 in view Fig 1 where the blower is disposed in a back region of the hood/helmet from the center of the hood/helmet).
Claims 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanDerWoude et al. (US 20150375019 A1) in view of Temmesfeld (WO 2021219608 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Wilkinson et al. (US 20220386724 A1).
Regarding claim 16, VanDerWoude et al. in view of Temmesfeld discloses the kit of claim 12 as discussed above.
VanDerWoude et al. does not specifically discloses, wherein the hood comprising a pathogen coating, the pathogen coating includes a phenothiazine dye or a phenothiazine derivative.
However, Wilkinson et al. which is analogous art to the claimed invention for the antimicrobial fabric in the healthcare industry (¶0001) teaches, the fabric or material incorporated with photosensitizing means such as coated, impregnated or dyed (¶0026) and to be selected from the structural classes of phenothiazines - Methylene Blue which is well known to destroy microorganism (¶0029-0030) and to be applied in medical gloves, facemasks, gowns, and other apparels (¶0030; Examiner notes that the claim limitation does not specify the component to be coated, so that Examiner interprets that the apparels or any other protection to be worn can be part of the kit in broadest reasonable interpretation).
Therefore, 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 kit of VanDerWoude et al. to include wherein the hood comprising a pathogen coating, the pathogen coating includes a phenothiazine dye or a phenothiazine derivative as taught by Wilkinson et al. in order to obtain antimicrobial protection (¶0029-0030)
Regarding claim 18, VanDerWoude et al. in view of Temmesfeld and Wilkinson et al. discloses the kit of claim 16 as discussed above.
VanDerWoude et al. further discloses, wherein a portion of the PAPR unit is disposed on the inner surface of the back region of the hood (VanDerWoude et al.: 211, Fig 5 in view Fig 1 where the blower is disposed within the hood/helmet and further its assembly is in contact with the inner surface of the back region of the hood).
Regarding claim 19, VanDerWoude et al. in view of Temmesfeld and Wilkinson et al. discloses the kit of claim 16 as discussed above.
Modified VanDerWoude et al. further discloses, wherein a first portion of the PAPR unit is disposed on the inner surface of the back region of the hood (VanDerWoude et al.: 211, Fig 5 in view Fig 1 where the blower is disposed within the hood/helmet and further its assembly is in contact with the inner surface of the back region of the hood) and a second portion disposed on an external surface (Temmesfeld: 7, Fig 5a; Examiner notes that the filter is the second portion).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding the subject matters of claims 7, 15, and 20, the closest identified prior art documents of record are Gomes et al. (US 20210308499 A1; Examiner notes that cited document includes disclosure with differing effective filing dates. The particular limitation relied upon in the present rejection are supported as of April 06, 2020), Jascomb et al. (US 20200060375 A1), and VanDerWoude et al. (US 20150375019 A1)
Regarding claim 7, the prior art documents of record, Gomes et al. and VanDerWoude et al., disclose the main components of the kit of claim 1 such as a hood comprising a shroud, a blower of the PAPR unit, a filter assembly, a head suspension frame, a flexible hose, and at least one battery as discussed in the rejections above,
but the prior art fails to teach or suggest that an air flow sensor, the air flow sensor includes a telltale assembly, the telltale assembly includes a first end and a second end, the second end of the telltale is coupled to a second end of the flexible hose, the first end of the telltale extends beyond the second end of the flexible hose adjacent to a user's peripheral vision, the at least a portion of the telltale assembly is movable from a first position to a second position, the first position being within the peripheral vision of the user to indicate low air flow or no air flow, and the second position being outside of the peripheral vision of the user to indicate sufficient air flow.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art documents of record, Jascomb et al. discloses, the personal protection system comprising the light source mounted in the front portion of the helmet and provide illumination while providing ventilation (Figs 1 and 16; ¶0015, 0043, 0056, 0059), but the prior art does not teach or suggest, wherein the at least one light which is disposed within a front region of the hood adjacent to a user's peripheral vision comprises a UV light, the UV light includes a UV-A, a UV-B, a UV-C and/or any combination thereof. Even though Jascomb et al. discloses, the light is disposed within a front region of the hood adjacent to a user's peripheral vision as discussed above rejections, they do not consider using the light to include UV light.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art document of record, VanDerWoude et al., disclose that the battery can be worn by the user on a belt or clipped to the clothing (¶0067), but they do not consider specifically that the battery is disposed in the front region of the hood, as shown in Figs 5A-6, and 16 of the instant application.
It is thus found that one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention would only have arrived at the instantly claimed invention by way of improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAEICK JANG whose telephone number is (703)756-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Kendra D Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/J.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785