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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the Republic of India on May 27, 2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IN 202021022111 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on November 7, 2025. As directed by the amendment, Claims 1, 3, and 7 have been amended. Claims 1-7 are pending in the instant application.
Regarding the Office Action mailed August 7, 2025:
Applicant has resolved all objections to the drawings. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant has resolved all objections to the claims. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn. However, additional objections have been found. Please see below for more details.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference and/or interpretation applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has amended Claim 1 to further include a demister bed. See 35 USC 103 rejections below for more details.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “containment free air” should be changed to –contaminants free air—for consistency (Claim 1, Line 11).
Claims 2-7 are objected for being dependent on objected Claim 1.
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 1-7 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 1 states “reduced to a tolerable level” (Line 12). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear what is considered a “tolerable level”. It appears the applicant was trying to say the tolerable level is based on the relative humidity produced. However, the claim does not specify what is considered a “tolerable level” and what is that level based off of. Additionally, the instant specification does not provide any further guidance into what would be considered a “tolerable level”. Therefore, the boundaries of the claim limitation cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as the “tolerable level” is subjective and is based on the user’s preferences. It is recommended to remove the “tolerable level” language.
Claims 2-7 are rejected for being dependent on rejected Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niazi (US 2010/0316534 A1) in view of Choi (US 2018/0015310 A1), Zhu (US 2017/0106333 A1), and Richardson et al. (US 6,553,989 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Niazi discloses a personal protection equipment (PPE) for air purification (an air scrubber for eliminating an associated airborne contaminants and sterilizing air, made for portable use along with respirators, Abstract), the PPE comprising: an apparatus (apparatus of Fig 1) comprising: and a scrubber unit (5, Fig 1) that is configured to purify the air before a user breathes the air (drives the contaminated stream or airflow into the liquid alkali 2 as fine bubbles, paragraph 0080), wherein the scrubber unit comprises: a sparger (5, Fig 1; sparger, paragraph 0080) through which the air is pumped and bubbled in a water solution (2, Fig 1) to trap remaining contaminants in the air (alkalis or bases capable of forming hydroxide ions when dissolved in water, paragraph 0059; scrubbing liquid is achieved by using a commonly available substance, sodium hydroxide as a minimum 10% solution, paragraph 0071; drives the contaminated stream or airflow into the liquid alkali 2 as fine bubbles, paragraph 0080) and the contaminants free or improved quality air is sent to the user for breathing (attached to respiratory apparatus, paragraph 0079). Niazi also discloses a liquid particle retaining filter 7 (paragraph 0080), the use of HEPA filters or other physical means like activated carbon for removing particulates from airflow, and the use of a centrifugal type separator of liquid particles in the air coming out of the outlet port (paragraph 0084).
Niazi fails to disclose a filter that is configured to filter the air for removing dust from the air; a water solution of polymer; wherein the containment free air is passed through a demister bed where trapped moisture is reduced to a tolerable level.
However, Choi, of the same field of endeavor, teaches a portable air purifier (Abstract) including a filter that is configured to filter the air for removing dust from the air (pre-filter 24, Figs 1-3; primary contaminant filtered out by pre-filter 24, paragraph 0038; the user may conveniently carry the portable air purifier regardless of place in preparation for atmospheric pollution, yellow dust, fine dust, paragraph 0037) to allow for the removal of dust in the air before it reaches the sparger (paragraphs 0037 and 0038).
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 filter at the inlet, as taught by Choi, to allow for the removal of dust in the air before it reaches the sparger (Choi: paragraphs 0037 and 0038). This addition would improve the filtering capabilities of the device by removing some of the contaminants before they go through the sparger.
Niazi-Choi combination teaches the use of alkalis and bases dissolved in water (Niazi: paragraph 0059).
Niazi-Choi combination fails to teach a water solution of polymer; wherein the containment free air is passed through a demister bed where trapped moisture is reduced to a tolerable level.
However, Zhu, of the same field of endeavor, teaches the removal and control of pollutant in an enclosed space or an outdoor environment (Abstract) including the use of a water solution of polymer (absorbent liquid selected from group consisting of water, optionally containing one or more additives consisting of an alkali metal salt, polyethylene glycol, sodium bicarbonate, sodium hydroxide, polymer amine, paragraph 0256) since it is known to mix polymer additives with alkali or base additives in a water solution (paragraph 0256) and since additives enhance the degradation of contaminants (paragraph 0095).
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 to the existing water solution with polymer additives, as taught by Zhu, since it is known to mix polymer additives with alkali or base additives in a water solution (Zhu: paragraph 0256) and since additives enhance the degradation of contaminants (Zhu: paragraph 0095). It is shown in Zhu that the alkalis and bases in the existing water solution of Niazi can be mixed with polymer additives to enhance the degradation of contaminants. Additionally, the use of these different substances would be obvious depending on what kinds of contaminants that the user would want to remove from the air.
Niazi-Choi-Zhu combination fails to teach wherein the containment free air is passed through a demister bed where trapped moisture is reduced to a tolerable level.
However, Richardson, of the same field of endeavor, teaches an emergency filtration device (Abstract) including the containment free air is passed through a demister bed where trapped moisture is reduced to a tolerable level (layers include a desiccant layer 48, an activated carbon layer 50, Column 4, Lines 41-45; tolerable level is interpreted as a level in which the user is capable of breathing the air based on their own tolerable levels) to remove moisture and increase the effectiveness of the activated carbon layers (Column 3, Lines 23-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify a desiccant layer or bed to the existing activated carbon filter 7 of Niazi at the outlet 6 of Niazi, as taught by Richardson, to remove moisture and increase the effectiveness of the activated carbon layers (Richardson: Column 3, Lines 23-26). This addition would improve the effectiveness of the activated carbon filters already taught by Niazi (Niazi: paragraph 0084). Niazi also already hints at removing moisture or liquid from the air through the use of a liquid particle retaining filter or a centrifugal type separator. Richardson shows that the use of desiccant layers or demisting layers is known in the art to remove moisture from breathable air.
Regarding Claim 2, Niazi-Choi-Zhu-Richardson combination teaches the air is sent to the scrubber unit through a first tube (Niazi: 4, Fig 1). The current Niazi-Choi-Zhu-Richardson combination fails to teach a flexible tube.
However, Zhu further teaches the tube is flexible (exit port can be fitted with a flexible conduit to direct captured air to absorbent media, paragraph 0126; conduit refers to means for transferring air such as hoses, tubing [plastic, tygon or rubber], paragraph 0107) since these are known tubes capable of transferring air.
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 tube to be flexible, as taught by Zhu, since these are known tubes capable of transferring air. Having a flexible tube would also allow for easier disassembly of components.
Regarding Claim 4, Niazi-Choi-Zhu-Richardson combination teaches the contaminants free air is sent to the user through a face mask (Niazi: an air scrubber for eliminating an associated airborne contaminants and sterilizing air, made for portable use along with respirators, Abstract; a respirator is a face mask).
The current Niazi-Choi-Zhu-Richardson combination fails to teach the contaminants free air is sent to the user through a second flexible tube.
However, Choi further teaches the contaminants free air is sent to the user through a second tube (28, Fig 1; the cannula 28 may be directly worn in the nasal cavity or oral cavity, or may be connected to and used in connection with a mask, paragraph 0032) since this is a known way to deliver breathable air to the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the mask or respirator to a second tube, as taught by Choi, since this is a known way to deliver breathable air to the user. Having a tube would allow the mask to be spaced out from the rest of the device for easier handling.
The current Niazi-Choi-Zhu-Richardson combination fails to teach a flexible tube.
However, Zhu further teaches the tube is flexible (exiting vessel delivered to individual via tubing connected to a face mask, paragraph 0063; conduit refers to means for transferring air such as hoses, tubing [plastic, tygon or rubber], paragraph 0107) since these are known tubes capable of transferring air.
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 second tube to be flexible, as taught by Zhu, since these are known tubes capable of transferring air. Having a flexible tube would also allow for easier use especially if the user is positioned in another place. Additionally, it is well-known for face masks or respirators to use flexible tubes for easier positioning.
Regarding Claim 5, Niazi-Choi-Zhu-Richardson combination teaches a fan for forcing air that is operated by an electrical current (Niazi: Claim 12). Niazi-Choi-Zhu-Richardson combination fails to teach the PPE comprises a battery to operate the scrubber unit.
However, Choi further teaches the PPE comprises a battery to operate the scrubber unit (20, Fig 2; control box 36 electrically connect to and control battery 20, 22, 30, and 32, paragraph 0025; control box 36 drives air compressor 22, paragraph 0034) to drive air into the device (Fig 2).
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 battery and air compressor to the inlet of the device, as taught by Choi, to drive air into the device (Fig 2). Niazi already teaches the possibility of using a fan to forcefully drive air into the device. The addition of Choi would further improve the efficiency of air delivery to the user. It is also known that batteries are used to power the fans and compressors that draw air into the device.
Regarding Claim 6, Niazi-Choi-Zhu-Richardson combination teaches a fan for forcing air that is operated by an electrical current (Niazi: Claim 12). Niazi-Choi-Zhu-Richardson combination fails to teach the air is inputted to an air pump unit for the removal of the dust from the air.
However, Choi further teaches the air is inputted to an air pump unit for the removal of the dust from the air (22, Fig 2; a contaminant included in external air is primarily filtered out while the external air is passing through the pre-filter 24 via the cover mesh member 16, and the filtered air is compressed via the air compressor 22, paragraph 0034; primary contaminant is filtered out by the pre-filter 24 while external air is being sucked by the air compressor 22, paragraph 0038) to drive air into the device (Fig 2).
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 battery and air compressor to the inlet of the device, as taught by Choi, to drive air into the device (Fig 2). Niazi already teaches the possibility of using a fan to forcefully drive air into the device. The addition of Choi would further improve the efficiency of air delivery to the user. It is also known that batteries are used to power the fans and compressors that draw air into the device.
Regarding Claim 7, Niazi-Choi-Zhu-Richardson combination teaches the PPE removes bacteria and viruses from the air before they reach a mouth or nostrils of the user (Niazi: a device attached to respirators that employs an alkali solution to remove airborne contaminants (e.g., microorganisms, viruses, allergens, toxins, warfare chemicals and biological agents) from air, paragraph 0001; biological contaminants include, by way of non-limiting example, bacteria, fungi, yeast, prions, fungi spores, protozoa, viruses, algae, pollen, various antigenic agents, and the like, paragraph 0004; Zhu: substances are known to kill pathogens, paragraph 0113).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
Claim 3 contains allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 is dependent on Claim 1 and discusses a packed column and a solution of chemicals.
Niazi (US 2010/0316534 A1) discusses an air scrubber. Though Niazi does mention a water solution, Niazi does not have any discussion regarding a packed column to go alongside the solution. Niazi is meant to be a portable device for its use with respirators. Fornai et al. (US 6,843,835 B2) was brought in to cure this deficiency. Though Fornai does mention the possibility of the device being portable (Fornai: Column 4, Lines 44-51), Fornai’s system is a complicated, bulky system and is intended for indoor use, not outdoor. There is nothing in Niazi that hints at the use of a packed column as Niazi would be able to function and operate normally without a packed column. There is no obvious modification or motivation that would drive one of ordinary skill in the art to add a packed column of Fornai into the device of Niazi to go alongside the water solution of Niazi.
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-20180311515-A1 discusses the use of a humidity sensor to control the humidity of the air (paragraph 0084).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights