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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B (Figs 23-32) in the reply filed on September 10, 2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings and reference characters lack clear, sufficiently dark, well-defined, distinct lines for adequate reproduction (Figs 14-32). See 37 CFR 1.84(l).
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 2-5 and 7-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “unfiltered air” should be changed to –the unfiltered air—for consistency (Claim 2, Line 2).
The phrase “filtered air” should be changed to –the filtered air—for consistency (Claim 2, Line 4).
The phrase “exhausts air” should be changed to –exhausts the filtered air—for consistency (Claim 3, Line 1; Claim 8, Line 1; Claim 14, Line 1; Claim 18, Line 1).
The phrase “micro-air circulation” should be changed to –micro-air circulation of air—for consistency (Claim 3, Line 3).
The phrase “the volumetric flow rate” should be changed to –a volumetric flow rate—since this is the first time this is mentioned (Claim 4, Lines 1-2; Claim 5, Line 2; Claim 9, Lines 1-2; Claim 10, Line 1 and Line 2 [2 instances]; Claim 15, Lines 1-2, Line 2, and Line 3 [3 instances]; Claim 19, Lines 1-2; Claim 20, Line 1 and Line 2 [2 instances]).
The phrase “the same side” should be changed to –a same side—since this is the first time this is mentioned (Claim 7, Line 2; Claim 13, Lines 2-3; Claim 17, Line 2).
A semicolon should be added after “housing” to correct the grammatical error (Claim 6, Line 9).
The phrase “headband” should be changed to –head band—for consistency (Claim 11, Line 2).
A period should be added after “cushion” to correct the grammatical error (Claim 16, Line 2).
Claim 12 is objected for being dependent on objected Claim 11.
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.
The following structure is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f):
Means to adjust the volumetric flow rate in Claims 4, 9, 15, and 19. The corresponding structures are an intake baffle 154 that is adjustable and/or changing the voltage of a fan element (Specification: Page 16, Lines 13-16). The changing of the voltage of the fan would change the speed of the fan.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 1 states “the head mount apparatus is worn on a person’s head” and “the air filter apparatus is positioned in front of a person’s nose and mouth” (Lines 5-6). This statement is directed to or encompasses a human organism because it requires the apparatus to be on a person’s head and the apparatus to be positioned in front of a person’s nose and mouth. Without the person, there is no place or position in which the apparatus can be worn and positioned. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as the head mount apparatus is configured to be worn and the air filter apparatus is configured to be positioned. Similar rejections are applied to Claim 6 (Lines 10-11) and Claim 11 (Lines 9-11).
Claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-20 are rejected for being dependent on rejected Claims 1, 6, and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the embodiment of Figs 95-97 of Conrad (US 2021/0275842 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Conrad discloses a locally directed filtered air environment apparatus (apparatus of Figs 95-97) comprising: a head mount apparatus (30, Fig 97) configured to be worn by a person (30 shown to be worn on a person, Fig 97); an air filter apparatus (10 and 14, Fig 97) having an air filter device (14, Fig 97), the air filter apparatus is attached to the head mount apparatus (10 and 14 are attached to 30, Fig 97) and configured to filter air (14 is a filter assembly, Fig 97; filter mask used to filter biological contaminants from the air, paragraph 0002); and wherein the head mount apparatus is worn on a person's head (30 shown to be worn on person’s head, Figs 95-97) and the air filter apparatus is positioned in front of a person's nose and mouth for the air filter apparatus to filter unfiltered air and deliver filtered air to the person's mouth and nose (10 and 14 shown to be positioned in front of person’s nose and mouth, Fig 97; filter mask used to filter biological contaminants from the air, paragraph 0002; presence of 118 and 116 in 14 would filter the incoming unfiltered air and deliver filtered air to the mask 10, Figs 97 and 100; the filter media comprises at least one layer of filter media that is selected to prevent or limit the flow therethrough of biological material, it may have pore sizes that inhibit or prevent the flow therethrough of bacteria and/or viruses, filter material may be referred to as biological filter media 116, paragraph 0312).
Regarding Claim 2, Conrad discloses an air filter body (body of 14, Figs 98-100) having an air filter intake (146, Fig 100) configured to intake unfiltered air (146 shown to intake unfiltered air, Fig 100) and an air filter exhaust (148, Fig 100) positioned a distance from the air filter intake (146 is spaced apart from 148, Fig 100) and configured to exhaust filtered air (148 shown to exhaust filtered air, Fig 100; each of the inhalation side 146 and the exhalation side 148 may have a foam filter 118 and/or a biological filter 116, paragraph 0370).
Regarding Claim 6, Conrad discloses a locally directed filtered air environment apparatus (apparatus of Figs 95-97) comprising: an air filter apparatus (10 and 14, Fig 97) connected to a head mount apparatus (30, Fig 97) configured to be worn by a person (30 shown to be worn on a person, Fig 97); the air filter apparatus having an air filter device (14, Fig 97) comprising an air filter body (body of 14, Figs 98-100) formed with an air filter intake (146 and 132, Fig 100) adjacent an air filter housing (lower portion of the housing of 14 containing 116 and 118, Fig 100), a fan housing (upper portion of the housing of 14 containing 130a and 130b, Fig 100) adjacent to the air filter housing (upper and lower portions of housing of 14 are next to each other, Fig 100), and an air filter exhaust (148 and 134, Fig 100) adjacent to the fan housing (148 and 134 are adjacent to the upper portion of housing of 14, Fig 100), an air filter element (116 and 118, Fig 100) contained in the air filter housing (116 and 118 are contained in lower portion of housing of 14, Fig 100), and a fan element (130a and 130b, Fig 100) contained in the fan housing (130a and 130b are contained in upper portion of housing of 14, Fig 100); wherein the head mount apparatus is worn on a person's head (30 shown to be worn on person’s head, Figs 95-97) and the air filter apparatus is positioned in front of a person's nose and mouth for the air filter apparatus to filter unfiltered air and deliver filtered air to the person's mouth and nose (10 and 14 shown to be positioned in front of person’s nose and mouth, Fig 97; filter mask used to filter biological contaminants from the air, paragraph 0002; presence of 118 and 116 in 14 would filter the incoming unfiltered air and deliver filtered air to the mask 10, Figs 97 and 100; the filter media comprises at least one layer of filter media that is selected to prevent or limit the flow therethrough of biological material, it may have pore sizes that inhibit or prevent the flow therethrough of bacteria and/or viruses, filter material may be referred to as biological filter media 116, paragraph 0312).
Regarding Claim 7, Conrad discloses the air filter exhaust is positioned a distance apart from the air filter intake on the same side of the air filter body (146 and 148 are positioned a distance apart on the same bottom side of the body of 14, Figs 98-100).
Regarding Claim 9, Conrad discloses a means to adjust the volumetric flow rate of the air filter intake (130a, Fig 100; 130a may assist with inhalation of the user, operates to blow air into the filter mask 10, thereby assisting with inhalation, paragraph 0370; fan may be actuated by a sensor (e.g., a pressure sensor or a flow sensor) provided in the air flow passage having the fan, paragraph 0369; the fan’s voltage would be changed to adjust the volumetric flow rate of air through 146 based on an inhalation from the user that is detected by the sensor; the fan would be turned on or off depending on whether or not an inhalation from the user is detected by the fan). It is noted that Applicant has not claimed adjusting the volumetric flow rate to be at different levels of flow rates.
Regarding Claim 10, Conrad discloses the volumetric flow rate of the air filter exhaust is greater than the volumetric flow rate of the air filter intake by at least 5 liters per minute (fan 130 may produce an air flow of 3-18 liters/minute, optionally 6-18 liters/minute or 12-18 liters/minute or optionally about 6 liters/minute, paragraph 0371; when the user exhales, the fan 130a would be turned off and the fan 130b would be turned on to push the exhalation out; when fan 130b is turned on, it would produce an airflow through 148 of 6 liters/minute which is greater than the airflow through 146 which is 0 liters/minute due to fan 130a being turned off).
Regarding Claim 11, Conrad discloses a locally directed filtered air environment apparatus (apparatus of Figs 95-97) comprising: a head mount apparatus (30, Figs 95-97) having an adjustable headband (straps of 30 with buckles, Figs 95-97; 30 shown to have buckles which allow for adjustment of the straps, Figs 95-97); an air filter apparatus (10 and 14, Fig 97) comprising an air filter device (14, Fig 97) having an air filter body (body of 14, Figs 98-100) formed with an air filter intake (146 and 132, Fig 100) adjacent an air filter housing (lower portion of the housing of 14 containing 116 and 118, Fig 100), a fan housing (upper portion of the housing of 14 containing 130a and 130b, Fig 100) adjacent to the air filter housing (upper and lower portions of housing of 14 are next to each other, Fig 100), and an air filter exhaust (148 and 134, Fig 100) adjacent to the fan housing (148 and 134 are adjacent to the upper portion of housing of 14, Fig 100), an air filter element (116 and 118, Fig 100) contained in the air filter housing (116 and 118 are contained in lower portion of housing of 14, Fig 100), and a fan element (130a and 130b, Fig 100) contained in the fan housing (130a and 130b are contained in upper portion of housing of 14, Fig 100); wherein the adjustable head band of the head mount apparatus is worn on a person's head (30 shown to be worn on person’s head, Figs 95-97) and the air filter apparatus is attached to the adjustable head band (10 and 14 are attached to 30, Figs 95-97) and positioned in front of a person's nose and mouth for the air filter apparatus to filter unfiltered air and deliver filtered air to the person's mouth and nose (10 and 14 shown to be positioned in front of person’s nose and mouth, Fig 97; filter mask used to filter biological contaminants from the air, paragraph 0002; presence of 118 and 116 in 14 would filter the incoming unfiltered air and deliver filtered air to the mask 10, Figs 97 and 100; the filter media comprises at least one layer of filter media that is selected to prevent or limit the flow therethrough of biological material, it may have pore sizes that inhibit or prevent the flow therethrough of bacteria and/or viruses, filter material may be referred to as biological filter media 116, paragraph 0312).
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the embodiment of Figs 20-30 of Conrad (US 2021/0275842 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Conrad discloses a locally directed filtered air environment apparatus (apparatus of Figs 20-30) comprising: a head mount apparatus (30, Figs 20-30) configured to be worn by a person (one or more straps 30 may be provided to extend around a person's head and secure the filter mask 10 in position on a person's face, paragraph 0249); an air filter apparatus (10 and 14, Fig 29) having an air filter device (14, Fig 29), the air filter apparatus is attached to the head mount apparatus (10 and 14 are attached to 30, Fig 29) and configured to filter air (14 is a filter assembly, Fig 29; filter mask used to filter biological contaminants from the air, paragraph 0002); and wherein the head mount apparatus is worn on a person's head (one or more straps 30 may be provided to extend around a person's head and secure the filter mask 10 in position on a person's face, paragraph 0249) and the air filter apparatus is positioned in front of a person's nose and mouth for the air filter apparatus to filter unfiltered air and deliver filtered air to the person's mouth and nose (one or more straps 30 may be provided to extend around a person's head and secure the filter mask 10 in position on a person's face, paragraph 0249; a side panel 18 is provided to position the face plate 20 so it is located outwards of the nose of a person wearing the filter mask 10, paragraph 0244; filter mask used to filter biological contaminants from the air, paragraph 0002; presence of 118 and 116 in 14 would filter the incoming unfiltered air and deliver filtered air to the mask 10, Fig 30; the filter media comprises at least one layer of filter media that is selected to prevent or limit the flow therethrough of biological material, it may have pore sizes that inhibit or prevent the flow therethrough of bacteria and/or viruses, filter material may be referred to as biological filter media 116, paragraph 0312).
Regarding Claim 2, Conrad discloses an air filter body (body of 14, Figs 29-30) having an air filter intake (146, Fig 30) configured to intake unfiltered air (146 shown to intake unfiltered air, Fig 30) and an air filter exhaust (148, Fig 30) positioned a distance from the air filter intake (148 is positioned a distance from 146 by being on the left side, Fig 30) and configured to exhaust filtered air (148 shown to exhaust filtered air, Fig 30).
Regarding Claim 6, Conrad discloses a locally directed filtered air environment apparatus (apparatus of Figs 20-30) comprising: an air filter apparatus (10 and 14, Fig 29) connected to a head mount apparatus (30, Figs 20-30) configured to be worn by a person (one or more straps 30 may be provided to extend around a person's head and secure the filter mask 10 in position on a person's face, paragraph 0249); the air filter apparatus having an air filter device (14, Fig 29) comprising an air filter body (body of 14, Figs 29-30) formed with an air filter intake (146, Fig 30) adjacent an air filter housing (146 is adjacent to the upper housing of 14 containing 118 and 116, Fig 30), a fan housing (lower housing of 14 containing 130, Fig 30) adjacent to the air filter housing (upper housing of 14 containing 118 is adjacent to lower housing of 14 containing 130, Fig 30), and an air filter exhaust (148, Fig 30) adjacent to the fan housing (148 is nearby the lower housing of 14 containing 130, Fig 30), an air filter element (118 and 116, Fig 30) contained in the air filter housing (upper housing of 14 containing 118 and 116, Fig 30), and a fan element (130, Fig 30) contained in the fan housing (lower housing of 14 containing 130, Fig 30); wherein the head mount apparatus is worn on a person's head (one or more straps 30 may be provided to extend around a person's head and secure the filter mask 10 in position on a person's face, paragraph 0249) and the air filter apparatus is positioned in front of a person's nose and mouth for the air filter apparatus to filter unfiltered air and deliver filtered air to the person's mouth and nose (one or more straps 30 may be provided to extend around a person's head and secure the filter mask 10 in position on a person's face, paragraph 0249; a side panel 18 is provided to position the face plate 20 so it is located outwards of the nose of a person wearing the filter mask 10, paragraph 0244; filter mask used to filter biological contaminants from the air, paragraph 0002; presence of 118 and 116 in 14 would filter the incoming unfiltered air and deliver filtered air to the mask 10, Fig 30; the filter media comprises at least one layer of filter media that is selected to prevent or limit the flow therethrough of biological material, it may have pore sizes that inhibit or prevent the flow therethrough of bacteria and/or viruses, filter material may be referred to as biological filter media 116, paragraph 0312).
Regarding Claim 7, Conrad discloses the air filter exhaust is positioned a distance apart from the air filter intake on the same side of the air filter body (148 and 146 shown to be distanced from each other by being on the left and right positions on the same side of 14, Fig 30).
Regarding Claim 11, Conrad discloses a locally directed filtered air environment apparatus (apparatus of Figs 20-30) comprising: a head mount apparatus (30, Figs 20-30) having an adjustable headband (30 shown to be connected to 90 which is a buckle that allows for adjustability, Fig 29); an air filter apparatus (10 and 14, Fig 29) comprising an air filter device (14, Fig 29) having an air filter body (body of 14, Figs 29-30) formed with an air filter intake (146, Fig 30) adjacent an air filter housing (146 is adjacent to the upper housing of 14 containing 118 and 116, Fig 30), a fan housing (lower housing of 14 containing 130, Fig 30) adjacent to the air filter housing (upper housing of 14 containing 118 is adjacent to lower housing of 14 containing 130, Fig 30), and an air filter exhaust (148, Fig 30) adjacent to the fan housing (148 is nearby the lower housing of 14 containing 130, Fig 30), an air filter element (118 and 116, Fig 30) contained in the air filter housing (upper housing of 14 containing 118 and 116, Fig 30), and a fan element (130, Fig 30) contained in the fan housing (lower housing of 14 containing 130, Fig 30); wherein the adjustable head band of the head mount apparatus is worn on a person's head (one or more straps 30 may be provided to extend around a person's head and secure the filter mask 10 in position on a person's face, paragraph 0249) and the air filter apparatus is attached to the adjustable head band (10 and 14 are attached to 30 via 90, Fig 29) and positioned in front of a person's nose and mouth for the air filter apparatus to filter unfiltered air and deliver filtered air to the person's mouth and nose (one or more straps 30 may be provided to extend around a person's head and secure the filter mask 10 in position on a person's face, paragraph 0249; a side panel 18 is provided to position the face plate 20 so it is located outwards of the nose of a person wearing the filter mask 10, paragraph 0244; filter mask used to filter biological contaminants from the air, paragraph 0002; presence of 118 and 116 in 14 would filter the incoming unfiltered air and deliver filtered air to the mask 10, Fig 30; the filter media comprises at least one layer of filter media that is selected to prevent or limit the flow therethrough of biological material, it may have pore sizes that inhibit or prevent the flow therethrough of bacteria and/or viruses, filter material may be referred to as biological filter media 116, paragraph 0312).
Regarding Claim 12, Conrad discloses an air circulator (20, 168, and 42a-d, Fig 30; airflow shown to circulate inside due to 20, 168, and 42a-d, Fig 30; the inlet and outlet air flow passage may be configured to produce circulation of air within volume 28 between a mask and the face of a user, paragraph 0408) having a transparent air circulator body (20, Fig 30; transparent face plate 20, paragraph 0243; face plate made of transparent material, paragraph 0244) with a lip (168, Fig 30) and with an air circulator intake (42a-b, Fig 30) and an air circulator exhaust (42c-d, Fig 30) formed into the air circulator body (20 is connected to 42a-d, Fig 30), wherein the air circulator is attached to the air filter device (20, 168, and 42a-d shown to be attached to 14, Fig 30) and the air circulator intake is aligned with the air filter intake (42c-d are shown to be aligned with 148, Fig 30) and the air circulator exhaust is aligned with the air filter exhaust (42a-b are shown to be aligned with 146, Fig 30).
Regarding Claim 13, Conrad discloses an opening of the air circulator intake is positioned a distance apart from an opening of the air circulator exhaust on the same side of the air circulator body (42a-b is shown to be positioned a distance apart from 42c-d on the same inside side of 20, Fig 30).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the embodiment of Figs 95-97 of Conrad (US 2021/0275842 A1) alone.
Regarding Claim 16, Conrad discloses the claimed invention of Claim 11. Conrad also discloses an air deflector (10, Figs 94-97; the physical structure of 10 would deflect the air to keep air inside of 10) having an air reflector body (body of 10, Figs 94-97) with a nose cushion (26, Figs 90 and 94-97; 26 shown to cushion the nose, Figs 94-97).
The current embodiment of Conrad fails to explicitly disclose a transparent air reflector body.
However, an alternative embodiment of Conrad teaches a transparent air reflector body (13, Fig 103) to allow the face of the user to be seen more clearly and to ease communication with others (paragraph 0259).
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 mask body to be transparent, as taught by Conrad, to allow the face of the user to be seen more clearly and to ease communication with others (Conrad: paragraph 0259).
Regarding Claim 17, Conrad teaches an opening of the air filter exhaust is positioned a distance apart from an opening of the air filter intake on the same side of the air filter body (146 and 148 are positioned a distance apart on the same bottom side of the body of 14, Figs 98-100).
Regarding Claim 19, Conrad teaches a means to adjust the volumetric flow rate of the air filter intake (130a, Fig 100; 130a may assist with inhalation of the user, operates to blow air into the filter mask 10, thereby assisting with inhalation, paragraph 0370; fan may be actuated by a sensor (e.g., a pressure sensor or a flow sensor) provided in the air flow passage having the fan, paragraph 0369; the fan’s voltage would be changed to adjust the volumetric flow rate of air through 146 based on an inhalation from the user that is detected by the sensor; the fan would be turned on or off depending on whether or not an inhalation from the user is detected by the fan). It is noted that Applicant has not claimed adjusting the volumetric flow rate to be at different levels of flow rates.
Regarding Claim 20, Conrad teaches the volumetric flow rate of the air filter exhaust is greater than the volumetric flow rate of the air filter intake by at least 5 liters per minute (fan 130 may produce an air flow of 3-18 liters/minute, optionally 6-18 liters/minute or 12-18 liters/minute or optionally about 6 liters/minute, paragraph 0371; when the user exhales, the fan 130a would be turned off and the fan 130b would be turned on to push the exhalation out; when fan 130b is turned on, it would produce an airflow through 148 of 6 liters/minute which is greater than the airflow through 146 which is 0 liters/minute due to fan 130a being turned off).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the embodiment of Figs 20-30 of Conrad (US 2021/0275842 A1) alone.
Regarding Claim 9, Conrad discloses the claimed invention of Claim 7. The current embodiment of Conrad fails to disclose a means to adjust the volumetric flow rate of the air filter intake.
However, an alternative embodiment of Conrad teaches a means to adjust the volumetric flow rate of the air filter intake (130a, Fig 100; 130a may assist with inhalation of the user, operates to blow air into the filter mask 10, thereby assisting with inhalation, paragraph 0370; fan may be actuated by a sensor (e.g., a pressure sensor or a flow sensor) provided in the air flow passage having the fan, paragraph 0369; the fan’s voltage would be changed to adjust the volumetric flow rate of air through 146 based on an inhalation from the user that is detected by the sensor; the fan would be turned on or off depending on whether or not an inhalation from the user is detected by the fan) to assist a user’s inhalation (paragraph 0370).
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 fan to turn on and off depending on a sensor detecting user inhalation, as taught by Conrad, to assist a user’s inhalation (Conrad: paragraph 0370). This addition of a sensor would provide further control of the mask and its fan without having the fan being activated constantly. It is noted that Applicant has not claimed adjusting the volumetric flow rate to be at different levels of flow rates.
Claims 3-5, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the embodiment of Figs 95-97 of Conrad (US 2021/0275842 A1) in view of Seppala et al. (US 2015/0053206 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Conrad discloses the claimed invention of Claim 2. Conrad fails to explicitly disclose the air filter exhaust exhausts air to create an air curtain and the air filter intake intakes a portion of the filtered air from the air filter exhaust inducing a localized micro-air circulation.
However, Conrad teaches the inhalation side 146 and the exhalation side 148 are next to each other and 146 intakes the air while 148 exhausts the air (Fig 100). Additionally, the first fan 130a operates to blow air into the filter mask 10, thereby assisting with inhalation, while the second fan 130b operates to blow air out of the filter mask 10, thereby assisting with exhalation (paragraph 0370).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a localized micro-air circulation at the inhalation and exhalation sides, as taught by Conrad, since both the inhalation and exhalation sides are next to each other and due to the flow of air caused by the fans. Since the fans are controlled by inhalation and exhalation of the user and the intake and exhaust are next to each other, a user would be capable of breathing, particularly breathing fast, to induce a localized micro-air circulation. Air coming out from the exhalation side 148 would be capable of being re-introduced into the inhalation side 146 due to the proximity of 146 and 148.
Conrad fails to teach the air filter exhaust exhausts air to create an air curtain.
However, Seppala, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a half facepiece respirator (Abstract) including an air filter exhaust (30 and 36, Fig 2) having a grille (22, Fig 2; grille 22 in the front of the hardened frame member 24 allows for airflow from the outer environment to access the filter 30, paragraph 0017; 36 is in line or adjacent to the back of grille 22, paragraph 0018) to protect the filter against contamination and spoilage due to splash hazards (paragraphs 0017 and 0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a grille to cover both the inhalation and exhalation sides of the device, as taught by Seppala, to protect the filter against contamination and spoilage due to splash hazards (Seppala: paragraphs 0017 and 0018). Since the device is being used in the outdoor environment, having a grille to cover the inhalation and exhalation sides of the device would protect the inside filters from liquid damage or contamination. Additionally, the presence of the grille would protect from larger particles or objects that could obstruct the openings to the filters. Furthermore, the grille would be capable of maintaining or keeping the filters within the filter assembly, increasing structural rigidity.
The current Conrad-Seppala combination does not explicitly teach the creation of an air curtain.
However, Seppala further teaches the grille preferably has slotted overlays of plastic ridges 23 and the ridges 23 may be individual straight, curved, or multi-faced slats (paragraph 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect the grille 22 of Seppala to produce an air curtain at the exhalation side 148 of Conrad due to the physical structure of grille 22 of Seppala having the ridges 23 of Seppala. Since the grille 22 of Seppala is utilizing slotted overlays of ridges or slats, the shape of the openings of these ridges would produce the claimed air curtain since the exhaled airflow would need to travel through a narrower slotted opening. Though the grille 22 of Seppala is not necessarily intended for creating an air curtain barrier for blocking particles, the grille 22 of Seppala would be capable of producing the claimed air curtain.
Regarding Claim 4, Conrad-Seppala combination teaches a means to adjust the volumetric flow rate of the air filter intake (Conrad: 130a, Fig 100; 130a may assist with inhalation of the user, operates to blow air into the filter mask 10, thereby assisting with inhalation, paragraph 0370; fan may be actuated by a sensor (e.g., a pressure sensor or a flow sensor) provided in the air flow passage having the fan, paragraph 0369; the fan’s voltage would be changed to adjust the volumetric flow rate of air through 146 based on an inhalation from the user that is detected by the sensor; the fan would be turned on or off depending on whether or not an inhalation from the user is detected by the fan). It is noted that Applicant has not claimed adjusting the volumetric flow rate to be at different levels of flow rates.
Regarding Claim 5, Conrad-Seppala combination teaches the volumetric flow rate of the air filter exhaust is greater than the volumetric flow rate of the air filter intake by at least 5 liters per minute (Conrad: fan 130 may produce an air flow of 3-18 liters/minute, optionally 6-18 liters/minute or 12-18 liters/minute or optionally about 6 liters/minute, paragraph 0371; when the user exhales, the fan 130a would be turned off and the fan 130b would be turned on to push the exhalation out; when fan 130b is turned on, it would produce an airflow through 148 of 6 liters/minute which is greater than the airflow through 146 which is 0 liters/minute due to fan 130a being turned off).
Regarding Claim 8, Conrad discloses the claimed invention of Claim 7. Conrad fails to explicitly disclose the air filter exhaust exhausts air to create an air curtain and the air filter intake intakes a portion of the filtered air from the air filter exhaust inducing a localized micro-air circulation of air.
However, Conrad teaches the inhalation side 146 and the exhalation side 148 are next to each other and 146 intakes the air while 148 exhausts the air (Fig 100). Additionally, the first fan 130a operates to blow air into the filter mask 10, thereby assisting with inhalation, while the second fan 130b operates to blow air out of the filter mask 10, thereby assisting with exhalation (paragraph 0370).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a localized micro-air circulation at the inhalation and exhalation sides, as taught by Conrad, since both the inhalation and exhalation sides are next to each other and due to the flow of air caused by the fans. Since the fans are controlled by inhalation and exhalation of the user and the intake and exhaust are next to each other, a user would be capable of breathing, particularly breathing fast, to induce a localized micro-air circulation. Air coming out from the exhalation side 148 would be capable of being re-introduced into the inhalation side 146 due to the proximity of 146 and 148.
Conrad fails to teach the air filter exhaust exhausts air to create an air curtain.
However, Seppala, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a half facepiece respirator (Abstract) including an air filter exhaust (30 and 36, Fig 2) having a grille (22, Fig 2; grille 22 in the front of the hardened frame member 24 allows for airflow from the outer environment to access the filter 30, paragraph 0017; 36 is in line or adjacent to the back of grille 22, paragraph 0018) to protect the filter against contamination and spoilage due to splash hazards (paragraphs 0017 and 0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a grille to cover both the inhalation and exhalation sides of the device, as taught by Seppala, to protect the filter against contamination and spoilage due to splash hazards (Seppala: paragraphs 0017 and 0018). Since the device is being used in the outdoor environment, having a grille to cover the inhalation and exhalation sides of the device would protect the inside filters from liquid damage or contamination. Additionally, the presence of the grille would protect from larger particles or objects that could obstruct the openings to the filters. Furthermore, the grille would be capable of maintaining or keeping the filters within the filter assembly, increasing structural rigidity.
The current Conrad-Seppala combination does not explicitly teach the creation of an air curtain.
However, Seppala further teaches the grille preferably has slotted overlays of plastic ridges 23 and the ridges 23 may be individual straight, curved, or multi-faced slats (paragraph 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect the grille 22 of Seppala to produce an air curtain at the exhalation side 148 of Conrad due to the physical structure of grille 22 of Seppala having the ridges 23 of Seppala. Since the grille 22 of Seppala is utilizing slotted overlays of ridges or slats, the shape of the openings of these ridges would produce the claimed air curtain since the exhaled airflow would need to travel through a narrower slotted opening. Though the grille 22 of Seppala is not necessarily intended for creating an air curtain barrier for blocking particles, the grille 22 of Seppala would be capable of producing the claimed air curtain.
Regarding Claim 18, Conrad teaches the claimed invention of Claim 17. Conrad fails to explicitly teach the air filter exhaust exhausts air to create an air curtain and the air filter intake intakes a portion of the filtered air from the air filter exhaust inducing a localized micro-air circulation.
However, Conrad teaches the inhalation side 146 and the exhalation side 148 are next to each other and 146 intakes the air while 148 exhausts the air (Fig 100). Additionally, the first fan 130a operates to blow air into the filter mask 10, thereby assisting with inhalation, while the second fan 130b operates to blow air out of the filter mask 10, thereby assisting with exhalation (paragraph 0370).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a localized micro-air circulation at the inhalation and exhalation sides, as taught by Conrad, since both the inhalation and exhalation sides are next to each other and due to the flow of air caused by the fans. Since the fans are controlled by inhalation and exhalation of the user and the intake and exhaust are next to each other, a user would be capable of breathing, particularly breathing fast, to induce a localized micro-air circulation. Air coming out from the exhalation side 148 would be capable of being re-introduced into the inhalation side 146 due to the proximity of 146 and 148.
Conrad fails to teach the air filter exhaust exhausts air to create an air curtain.
However, Seppala, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a half facepiece respirator (Abstract) including an air filter exhaust (30 and 36, Fig 2) having a grille (22, Fig 2; grille 22 in the front of the hardened frame member 24 allows for airflow from the outer environment to access the filter 30, paragraph 0017; 36 is in line or adjacent to the back of grille 22, paragraph 0018) to protect the filter against contamination and spoilage due to splash hazards (paragraphs 0017 and 0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a grille to cover both the inhalation and exhalation sides of the device, as taught by Seppala, to protect the filter against contamination and spoilage due to splash hazards (Seppala: paragraphs 0017 and 0018). Since the device is being used in the outdoor environment, having a grille to cover the inhalation and exhalation sides of the device would protect the inside filters from liquid damage or contamination. Additionally, the presence of the grille would protect from larger particles or objects that could obstruct the openings to the filters. Furthermore, the grille would be capable of maintaining or keeping the filters within the filter assembly, increasing structural rigidity.
The current Conrad-Seppala combination does not explicitly teach the creation of an air curtain.
However, Seppala further teaches the grille preferably has slotted overlays of plastic ridges 23 and the ridges 23 may be individual straight, curved, or multi-faced slats (paragraph 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect the grille 22 of Seppala to produce an air curtain at the exhalation side 148 of Conrad due to the physical structure of grille 22 of Seppala having the ridges 23 of Seppala. Since the grille 22 of Seppala is utilizing slotted overlays of ridges or slats, the shape of the openings of these ridges would produce the claimed air curtain since the exhaled airflow would need to travel through a narrower slotted opening. Though the grille 22 of Seppala is not necessarily intended for creating an air curtain barrier for blocking particles, the grille 22 of Seppala would be capable of producing the claimed air curtain.
Claims 3-4, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the embodiment of Figs 29-30 of Conrad (US 2021/0275842 A1) in view of Seppala et al. (US 2015/0053206 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Conrad discloses the claimed invention of Claim 2. Conrad fails to explicitly disclose the air filter exhaust exhausts air to create an air curtain and the air filter intake intakes a portion of the filtered air from the air filter exhaust inducing a localized micro-air circulation.
However, Conrad teaches the inhalation side 146 and the exhalation side 148 are next to each other and 146 intakes the air while 148 exhausts the air (Fig 30). Additionally, the use of a fan 130 causes air to enter and travel down and then exhaled air will tend to travel upwardly (paragraph 0411).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a localized micro-air circulation at the inhalation and exhalation sides, as taught by Conrad, since both the inhalation and exhalation sides are next to each other and due to the flow of air caused by the fan. Air coming out from the exhalation side 148 would be capable of being re-introduced into the inhalation side 146 due to the proximity of 146 and 148.
Conrad fails to teach the air filter exhaust exhausts air to create an air curtain.
However, Seppala, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a half facepiece respirator (Abstract) including an air filter exhaust (30 and 36, Fig 2) having a grille (22, Fig 2; grille 22 in the front of the hardened frame member 24 allows for airflow from the outer environment to access the filter 30, paragraph 0017; 36 is in line or adjacent to the back of grille 22, paragraph 0018) to protect the filter against contamination and spoilage due to splash hazards (paragraphs 0017 and 0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a grille to cover both the inhalation and exhalation sides of the device, as taught by Seppala, to protect the filter against contamination and spoilage due to splash hazards (Seppala: paragraphs 0017 and 0018). Since the device is being used in the outdoor environment, having a grille to cover the inhalation and exhalation sides of the device would protect the inside filters from liquid damage or contamination. Additionally, the presence of the grille would protect from larger particles or objects that could obstruct the openings to the filters. Furthermore, the grille would be capable of maintaining or keeping the filters within the filter assembly, increasing structural rigidity.
The current Conrad-Seppala combination does not explicitly teach the creation of an air curtain.
However, Seppala further teaches the grille preferably has slotted overlays of plastic ridges 23 and the ridges 23 may be individual straight, curved, or multi-faced slats (paragraph 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect the grille 22 of Seppala to produce an air curtain at the exhalation side 148 of Conrad due to the physical structure of grille 22 of Seppala having the ridges 23 of Seppala. Since the grille 22 of Seppala is utilizing slotted overlays of ridges or slats, the shape of the openings of these ridges would produce the claimed air curtain since the exhaled airflow would need to travel through a narrower slotted opening. Though the grille 22 of Seppala is not necessarily intended for creating an air curtain barrier for blocking particles, the grille 22 of Seppala would be capable of producing the claimed air curtain.
Regarding Claim 4, the current Conrad-Seppala combination fails to teach a means to adjust the volumetric flow rate of the air filter intake.
However, an alternative embodiment of Conrad teaches a means to adjust the volumetric flow rate of the air filter intake (130a, Fig 100; 130a may assist with inhalation of the user, operates to blow air into the filter mask 10, thereby assisting with inhalation, paragraph 0370; fan may be actuated by a sensor (e.g., a pressure sensor or a flow sensor) provided in the air flow passage having the fan, paragraph 0369; the fan’s voltage would be changed to adjust the volumetric flow rate of air through 146 based on an inhalation from the user that is detected by the sensor; the fan would be turned on or off depending on whether or not an inhalation from the user is detected by the fan) to assist a user’s inhalation (paragraph 0370).
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 fan to turn on and off depending on a sensor detecting user inhalation, as taught by Conrad, to assist a user’s inhalation (Conrad: paragraph 0370). This addition of a sensor would provide further control of the mask and its fan without having the fan being activated constantly. It is noted that Applicant has not claimed adjusting the volumetric flow rate to be at different levels of flow rates.
Regarding Claim 8, Conrad discloses the claimed invention of Claim 7. Conrad fails to explicitly disclose the air filter exhaust exhausts air to create an air curtain and the air filter intake intakes a portion of the filtered air from the air filter exhaust inducing a localized micro-air circulation of air.
However, Conrad teaches the inhalation side 146 and the exhalation side 148 are next to each other and 146 intakes the air while 148 exhausts the air (Fig 30). Additionally, the use of a fan 130 causes air to enter and travel down and then exhaled air will tend to travel upwardly (paragraph 0411).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a localized micro-air circulation at the inhalation and exhalation sides, as taught by Conrad, since both the inhalation and exhalation sides are next to each other and due to the flow of air caused by the fan. Air coming out from the exhalation side 148 would be capable of being re-introduced into the inhalation side 146 due to the proximity of 146 and 148.
Conrad fails to teach the air filter exhaust exhausts air to create an air curtain.
However, Seppala, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a half facepiece respirator (Abstract) including an air filter exhaust (30 and 36, Fig 2) having a grille (22, Fig 2; grille 22 in the front of the hardened frame member 24 allows for airflow from the outer environment to access the filter 30, paragraph 0017; 36 is in line or adjacent to the back of grille 22, paragraph 0018) to protect the filter against contamination and spoilage due to splash hazards (paragraphs 0017 and 0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a grille to cover both the inhalation and exhalation sides of the device, as taught by Seppala, to protect the filter against contamination and spoilage due to splash hazards (Seppala: paragraphs 0017 and 0018). Since the device is being used in the outdoor environment, having a grille to cover the inhalation and exhalation sides of the device would protect the inside filters from liquid damage or contamination. Additionally, the presence of the grille would protect from larger particles or objects that could obstruct the openings to the filters. Furthermore, the grille would be capable of maintaining or keeping the filters within the filter assembly, increasing structural rigidity.
The current Conrad-Seppala combination does not explicitly teach the creation of an air curtain.
However, Seppala further teaches the grille preferably has slotted overlays of plastic ridges 23 and the ridges 23 may be individual straight, curved, or multi-faced slats (paragraph 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect the grille 22 of Seppala to produce an air curtain at the exhalation side 148 of Conrad due to the physical structure of grille 22 of Seppala having the ridges 23 of Seppala. Since the grille 22 of Seppala is utilizing slotted overlays of ridges or slats, the shape of the openings of these ridges would produce the claimed air curtain since the exhaled airflow would need to travel through a narrower slotted opening. Though the grille 22 of Seppala is not necessarily intended for creating an air curtain barrier for blocking particles, the grille 22 of Seppala would be capable of producing the claimed air curtain.
Regarding Claim 14, Conrad discloses the claimed invention of Claim 13. Conrad fails to explicitly disclose the air filter exhaust exhausts air to create an air curtain and the air filter intake intakes a portion of the filtered air from the air filter exhaust inducing a localized micro-air circulation.
However, Conrad teaches the inhalation side 146 and the exhalation side 148 are next to each other and 146 intakes the air while 148 exhausts the air (Fig 30). Additionally, the use of a fan 130 causes air to enter and travel down and then exhaled air will tend to travel upwardly (paragraph 0411).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a localized micro-air circulation at the inhalation and exhalation sides, as taught by Conrad, since both the inhalation and exhalation sides are next to each other and due to the flow of air caused by the fan. Air coming out from the exhalation side 148 would be capable of being re-introduced into the inhalation side 146 due to the proximity of 146 and 148.
Conrad fails to teach the air filter exhaust exhausts air to create an air curtain.
However, Seppala, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a half facepiece respirator (Abstract) including an air filter exhaust (30 and 36, Fig 2) having a grille (22, Fig 2; grille 22 in the front of the hardened frame member 24 allows for airflow from the outer environment to access the filter 30, paragraph 0017; 36 is in line or adjacent to the back of grille 22, paragraph 0018) to protect the filter against contamination and spoilage due to splash hazards (paragraphs 0017 and 0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a grille to cover both the inhalation and exhalation sides of the device, as taught by Seppala, to protect the filter against contamination and spoilage due to splash hazards (Seppala: paragraphs 0017 and 0018). Since the device is being used in the outdoor environment, having a grille to cover the inhalation and exhalation sides of the device would protect the inside filters from liquid damage or contamination. Additionally, the presence of the grille would protect from larger particles or objects that could obstruct the openings to the filters. Furthermore, the grille would be capable of maintaining or keeping the filters within the filter assembly, increasing structural rigidity.
The current Conrad-Seppala combination does not explicitly teach the creation of an air curtain.
However, Seppala further teaches the grille preferably has slotted overlays of plastic ridges 23 and the ridges 23 may be individual straight, curved, or multi-faced slats (paragraph 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect the grille 22 of Seppala to produce an air curtain at the exhalation side 148 of Conrad due to the physical structure of grille 22 of Seppala having the ridges 23 of Seppala. Since the grille 22 of Seppala is utilizing slotted overlays of ridges or slats, the shape of the openings of these ridges would produce the claimed air curtain since the exhaled airflow would need to travel through a narrower slotted opening. Though the grille 22 of Seppala is not necessarily intended for creating an air curtain barrier for blocking particles, the grille 22 of Seppala would be capable of producing the claimed air curtain.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the embodiment of Figs 29-30 of Conrad (US 2021/0275842 A1) in view of Martin et al. (US 2016/0375276 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Conrad discloses the claimed invention of Claim 7. The current embodiment of Conrad fails to disclose the volumetric flow rate of the air filter exhaust is greater than the volumetric flow rate of the air filter intake by at least 5 liters per minute.
However, an alternative embodiment of Conrad further teaches the volumetric flow rate of the air filter exhaust is greater than the volumetric flow rate of the air filter intake through the use of valves (170 and 172, Fig 39; 170 may be configured to close automatically during exhalation and/or to automatically open upon inhalation, paragraph 0413; 172 may be configured to close automatically during inhalation and/or to automatically open upon exhalation, paragraph 0414; when 172 is open and 170 is closed during exhalation, flow rate of 42c is greater than flow rate of 42a) to control the flow pattern and prevent backward air flow (paragraph 0413).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add valves, as taught by Conrad, to control the flow pattern and prevent backward air flow (Conrad: paragraph 0413).
Conrad fails to teach the volumetric flow rate of the air filter exhaust is greater than the volumetric flow rate of the air filter intake by at least 5 liters per minute.
However, Martin, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a respirator (Abstract) including the average daily ventilation rate of a male breathing is about 15 liters per minute (paragraph 0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect the volumetric flow rate of the air filter exhaust being greater than the volumetric flow rate of the air filter intake by at least 5 liters per minute, as taught by Martin, since a typical male’s exhalation would produce 15 liters per minute (Martin: paragraph 0088). Since the device does not activate the fan during exhalation and the inlet valve is not open, the exhalation produced by the user would produce a volumetric flow rate through the air filter exhaust that is 15 liters per minute which is greater than the volumetric flow rate through the air filter intake which has zero liters per minute due to no flow.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the embodiment of Figs 29-30 of Conrad (US 2021/0275842 A1) and Seppala et al. (US 2015/0053206 A1) as applied to Claims 4 and 14, in further view of Martin et al. (US 2016/0375276 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Conrad-Seppala combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 4. The current Conrad-Seppala combination fails to teach the volumetric flow rate of the air filter exhaust is greater than the volumetric flow rate of the air filter intake by at least 5 liters per minute.
However, an alternative embodiment of Conrad further teaches the volumetric flow rate of the air filter exhaust is greater than the volumetric flow rate of the air filter intake through the use of valves (170 and 172, Fig 39; 170 may be configured to close automatically during exhalation and/or to automatically open upon inhalation, paragraph 0413; 172 may be configured to close automatically during inhalation and/or to automatically open upon exhalation, paragraph 0414; when 172 is open and 170 is closed during exhalation, flow rate of 42c is greater than flow rate of 42a) to control the flow pattern and prevent backward air flow (paragraph 0413).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add valves, as taught by Conrad, to control the flow pattern and prevent backward air flow (Conrad: paragraph 0413).
Conrad-Seppala combination fails to teach the volumetric flow rate of the air filter exhaust is greater than the volumetric flow rate of the air filter intake by at least 5 liters per minute.
However, Martin, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a respirator (Abstract) including the average daily ventilation rate of a male breathing is about 15 liters per minute (paragraph 0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect the volumetric flow rate of the air filter exhaust being greater than the volumetric flow rate of the air filter intake by at least 5 liters per minute, as taught by Martin, since a typical male’s exhalation would produce 15 liters per minute (Martin: paragraph 0088). Since the device does not activate the fan during exhalation and the inlet valve is not open, the exhalation produced by the user would produce a volumetric flow rate through the air filter exhaust that is 15 liters per minute which is greater than the volumetric flow rate through the air filter intake which has zero liters per minute due to no flow.
Regarding Claim 15, Conrad-Seppala combination teaches the claimed invention of Claim 14. The current Conrad-Seppala combination fails to teach a means to adjust the volumetric flow rate of the air filter intake and the volumetric flow rate of the air circulator exhaust is greater than the volumetric flow rate of the air circulator intake by at least 5 liters per minute.
However, an alternative embodiment of Conrad teaches a means to adjust the volumetric flow rate of the air filter intake (130a, Fig 100; 130a may assist with inhalation of the user, operates to blow air into the filter mask 10, thereby assisting with inhalation, paragraph 0370; fan may be actuated by a sensor (e.g., a pressure sensor or a flow sensor) provided in the air flow passage having the fan, paragraph 0369; the fan’s voltage would be changed to adjust the volumetric flow rate of air through 146 based on an inhalation from the user that is detected by the sensor; the fan would be turned on or off depending on whether or not an inhalation from the user is detected by the fan) to assist a user’s inhalation (paragraph 0370).
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 fan to turn on and off depending on a sensor detecting user inhalation, as taught by Conrad, to assist a user’s inhalation (Conrad: paragraph 0370). This addition of a sensor would provide further control of the mask and its fan without having the fan being activated constantly. It is noted that Applicant has not claimed adjusting the volumetric flow rate to be at different levels of flow rates.
The current Conrad-Seppala combination fails to teach the volumetric flow rate of the air circulator exhaust is greater than the volumetric flow rate of the air circulator intake by at least 5 liters per minute.
However, an alternative embodiment of Conrad further teaches the volumetric flow rate of the air circulator exhaust is greater than the volumetric flow rate of the air circulator intake through the use of valves (170 and 172, Fig 39; 170 may be configured to close automatically during exhalation and/or to automatically open upon inhalation, paragraph 0413; 172 may be configured to close automatically during inhalation and/or to automatically open upon exhalation, paragraph 0414; when 172 is open and 170 is closed during exhalation, flow rate of 42c is greater than flow rate of 42a) to control the flow pattern and prevent backward air flow (paragraph 0413).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add valves, as taught by Conrad, to control the flow pattern and prevent backward air flow (Conrad: paragraph 0413).
Conrad-Seppala combination fails to teach the volumetric flow rate of the air circulator exhaust is greater than the volumetric flow rate of the air circulator intake by at least 5 liters per minute.
However, Martin, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a respirator (Abstract) including the average daily ventilation rate of a male breathing is about 15 liters per minute (paragraph 0088).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expect the volumetric flow rate of the air circulator exhaust being greater than the volumetric flow rate of the air circulator intake by at least 5 liters per minute, as taught by Martin, since a typical male’s exhalation would produce 15 liters per minute (Martin: paragraph 0088). Since the device does not activate the fan during exhalation and the inlet valve is not open, the exhalation produced by the user would produce a volumetric flow rate through the air filter exhaust that is 15 liters per minute which is greater than the volumetric flow rate through the air filter intake which has zero liters per minute due to no flow.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for art cited of interest including:
US 20230356009 A1 discusses a mask with a built-in air curtain
US 20220072340 A1 discusses a mask with an air curtain going across the mask
US 20150174435 A1 discusses an air filter assembly that is on one side of the person’s head
US 20190009114 A1 discusses a mask with an air curtain below it
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN THAI-BINH KHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9:00 am-6:00 pm.
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 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.
/BRIAN T KHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785