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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to a preliminary amendment filed on 7/7/2023. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-15 were amended, duplicate claim 8 was cancelled and new claim 16 was added. Thus, claims 1-16 are presently pending in this application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology, (i.e., the term “comprising” in line 3 of the abstract). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8-9 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 29, the term “adapted to tight” is suggested to be changed to --adapted to tighten” in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 8, line 5, the term “the space” is suggested to be changed to --a space-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 9, line 3, the term “the same material” is suggested to be changed to --a same material-- in order to clarify the claim.
In claim 12, line 3, the term “on at least one of its surfaces” is suggested to be changed to --on at least one surfaces of the transparent shield-- in order to clarify the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the limitations “a tightening device of the hood portion adapted to tight the hood portion around a head of a user, the tightening device further configured to define a narrow chamber between the hood portion and the user’s head and to generate a cooling airflow close to the head of the user” (claim 1, lines 29-32, the generic placeholder is “device” and the function is “tightening” and “adapted to tight the hood portion around a head of a user, the tightening device further configured to define a narrow chamber between the hood portion and the user’s head and to generate a cooling airflow close to the head of the user”), “an adjustment device configured to tighten the facial shield support around a head of a user, and configured to pull the facial peripheral ring against the head of the user” (claim 1, lines 12-14, the term “device is a generic placeholder and the function is “adjustment” and “configured to tighten the facial shield support around a head of a user, and configured to pull the facial peripheral ring against the head of the user”), “an additional adjustment device” (claim 3, line 3, the term “device” is a generic placeholder and the function is “adjustment”), “at least a portion, or at least a torso portion, of the partial or complete body portion is configured to generate a cooling airflow close to the body of the user by being: adapted to be tightened around the body of the user; or adapted to be tightened around the body of the user by an additional adjustment device” (claim 4, lines 2-7, the generic place holder is the underlined “portion” and “torso portion” and the function is “is configured to generate a cooling airflow close to the body of the user by being: adapted to be tightened around the body of the user; or adapted to be tightened around the body of the user by an additional adjustment device), “an intermediate padding element” (claim 10, line 6, the term “element” is a generic placeholder and the function is “padding”), and “a control unit” and “the control unit…is configured to regulate the insufflated air flow in response to the temperature measurements, breathing and/or cardiac measurements obtained from the sensors” (claim 13, line 3 and claim 14, lines 2-5, the generic placeholder is “unit” and the function is “control” and “is configured to regulate the insufflated air flow in response to the temperature measurements, breathing and/or cardiac measurements obtained from the sensors”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a tightening device of the hood portion adapted to tight the hood portion around a head of a user, the tightening device further configured to define a narrow chamber between the hood portion and the user’s head and to generate a cooling airflow close to the head of the user” (claim 1, lines 29-32) is a term that invokes 112(f), however, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure of a tightening device that can generate a cooling airflow close to the head of the user. Pages 6-7 of the specification filed on 1/12/2023 discloses the term “tightening means” but failed to disclose the corresponding structure of a tightening means that can generate a cooling airflow. Therefore, claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “an additional adjustment device” (claim 3, line 3) is a term that invokes 112(f), however, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure of an additional adjustment device that can generate a cooling airflow close to the head of the user. Page 7 of the specification filed on 1/12/2023 discloses the term “tightening means” and that the tightening means can be an additional adjustment device but failed to disclose the corresponding structure of a tightening means or the additional adjustment device that can generate a cooling airflow, it is noted that claim 3 claims that the tightening device is the additional adjustment device. Therefore, claim 3 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the adjustment device which tightens the facial shield support around a head of a user” (claim 3, lines 5-6 and line 8) is a term that invokes 112(f), however, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure of the adjustment device that can generate a cooling airflow close to the head of the user. Page 7 of the specification filed on 1/12/2023 discloses the term “tightening means” and that the tightening means can be the adjustment device of the shield support but failed to disclose the corresponding structure of a tightening means and the adjustment device that can generate a cooling airflow, it is noted that claim 3 claims that the tightening device is the adjustment device. Therefore, claim 3 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “at least a portion, or at least a torso portion, of the partial or complete body portion is configured to generate a cooling airflow close to the body of the user by being: adapted to be tightened around the body of the user; or adapted to be tightened around the body of the user by an additional adjustment device” (claim 4, lines 2-7) is a term that invokes 112(f), however, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure of a portion or a torso portion that can generate a cooling airflow close to the body of the user. Page 7 of the specification filed on 1/12/2023 discloses the term “at least a portion, or at least a torso portion” but failed to disclose the corresponding structure of the at least a portion or at least a torso portion that can generate a cooling airflow. Therefore, claim 4 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “an intermediate padding element” (claim 10, line 6) is a term that invokes 112(f), however, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure of an intermediate padding element. Page 11 of the specification filed on 1/12/2023 discloses the term “an intermediate padding element” but failed to disclose the corresponding structure of the intermediate padding element. Therefore, claim 10 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, limitations “a control unit” and “the control unit…is configured to regulate the insufflated air flow in response to the temperature measurements, breathing and/or cardiac measurements obtained from the sensors” (claim 13, line 3 and claim 14, lines 2-5) are terms that invoke 112(f), however, the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure of a control unit. Page 11 of the specification filed on 1/12/2023 discloses the term “a control unit” but failed to disclose the corresponding structure of the control unit. Therefore, claims 13 and 14 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Any remaining claims are rejected for their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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 1-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “configured to pull the facial peripheral ring against the head of the user; and
an air inlet disposed on the complete or partial body portion and configured to insufflate air into the protective garment and at least an air outlet defined by one or more air pressure relieve valves included in the facial shield, or an air inlet disposed on the facial shield and configured to insufflate air into the facial shield and an air outlet defined by one or more air pressure relieve valves included in the complete or partial body portion, producing an airflow path between the air inlet and the air outlet at least through the hood portion;
an airflow path being set to produce a cooling airflow on the user body by: spacers disposed on the facial peripheral ring and configured to provide a permeable close non-air-tight fitting between the facial peripheral ring and the head of the used, the spaces further configured to generate a cooling airflow passing through the close non-air-tight fitting, cooling the parts of the user in contact with the facial peripheral ring and surrounding areas; and/or
a tightening device of the hood portion adapted to tight the hood portion around a head of a user, the tightening device further configured to define a narrow chamber between the hood portion and the user’s head and to generate a cooling airflow close to the head of the user” (lines 14-32) is unclear because of the usage of “and” and “and/or” in lines 14 and line 28, which makes it unclear as to where the term “and” should be applied and where the term “and/or” should be applied.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “an airflow path is being set to produce a cooling airflow” (line 23) is unclear as to how an airflow path can produce a cooling airflow, an airflow path can move cooling airflow, but does not produce cooling airflow, therefore, it is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation “produce” since it appears that the term “produce” is being used against its conventional meaning.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “permeable close non-air-tight fitting” (line 25) is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, it is unclear as to what form of fitting is both permeable non-air-tight and close. How can a fitting be closed but also permeable and non-air-tight.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the used” (line 26) lacks proper antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear if the limitation is referring to the user.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, the limitation “the spaces” (claim 1, line 26 and claim 2, line 4) lacks proper antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear if the limitation “the spaces” is referring to “spacers” being claimed in claim 1, line 24 or not.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the spaces further configured to generate a cooling airflow passing through the close non-air-tight fitting” (lines 26-27) is unclear as to how spaces can generate a cooling airflow, furthermore, even if the limitation is referring to the term “spacers”, it is unclear as to how spacers can generate a cooling airflow, spacers can move cooling airflow, but does not generate cooling airflow, therefore, it is unclear as to how to determine the metes and bounds of the limitation “generate” since it appears that the term “generate” is being used against its conventional meaning.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation "Velcro” (line 3) is unclear as to how to define the metes and bounds of the term “Velcro” since the trademark or trade name "Velcro" cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. In fact, the value of a trademark would be lost to the extent that it become descriptive of a product, rather than used as an identification of a source or origin of a product. Thus, the use of a trademark or trade name in a claim to identify or describe a material or product would not only render the claim indefinite, but would also constitute an improper use of the trademark or tradename.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “and tightly fitted thereto” (lines 6-7) is unclear as to what structure is being tightly fitted thereto, and what structure is being referred to by the term “thereto”.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “according to claim 10” (line 2) is unclear as to which claim, claim 10 is depended on, since a claim cannot depend on itself. For examination purposes, claim 10 is being dependent on claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “according to claim 14” (line 2) is unclear as to which claim, claim 14 is depended on, since a claim cannot depend on itself. For examination purposes, claim 14 is being dependent on claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “the control unit” (line 2) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “the air supply” (lines 2-3) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “the sensors” (line 5) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “an outer layer” (line 3) is unclear if the outer layer is the same as or different from the outer layer being claimed in claim 1, line 3.
Claim limitations “a tightening device of the hood portion adapted to tight the hood portion around a head of a user, the tightening device further configured to define a narrow chamber between the hood portion and the user’s head and to generate a cooling airflow close to the head of the user” (claim 1, lines 29-32), “an additional adjustment device” (claim 3, line 3), “the adjustment device which tightens the facial shield support around a head of a user” (claim 3, lines 5-6 and line 8), “at least a portion, or at least a torso portion, of the partial or complete body portion is configured to generate a cooling airflow close to the body of the user by being: adapted to be tightened around the body of the user; or adapted to be tightened around the body of the user by an additional adjustment device” (claim 4, lines 2-7), “an intermediate padding element” (claim 10, line 6) and “a control unit” and “the control unit…is configured to regulate the insufflated air flow in response to the temperature measurements, breathing and/or cardiac measurements obtained from the sensors” (claim 13, line 3 and claim 14, lines 2-5) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding the limitation “a tightening device of the hood portion adapted to tight the hood portion around a head of a user, the tightening device further configured to define a narrow chamber between the hood portion and the user’s head and to generate a cooling airflow close to the head of the user” (claim 1, lines 29-32), the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure of a tightening device that can generate a cooling airflow close to the head of the user. Pages 6-7 of the specification filed on 1/12/2023 discloses the term “tightening means” but failed to disclose the corresponding structure of a tightening means that can generate a cooling airflow.
Regarding limitation “an additional adjustment device” (claim 3, line 3), the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure of an additional adjustment device that can generate a cooling airflow close to the head of the user, it is noted that claim 3 claims that the tightening device is an additional adjustment device. Page 7 of the specification filed on 1/12/2023 discloses the term “tightening means” and that the tightening means can be an additional adjustment device but failed to disclose the corresponding structure of a tightening means and the additional adjustment device that can generate a cooling airflow.
Regarding limitation “the adjustment device which tightens the facial shield support around a head of a user” (claim 3, lines 5-6 and line 8), the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure of the adjustment device that can generate a cooling airflow close to the head of the user. Page 7 of the specification filed on 1/12/2023 discloses the term “tightening means” and that the tightening means can be the adjustment device of the shield support but failed to disclose the corresponding structure of a tightening means and the adjustment device that can generate a cooling airflow, it is noted that claim 3 claims that the tightening device is the adjustment device.
Regarding the limitation “at least a portion, or at least a torso portion, of the partial or complete body portion is configured to generate a cooling airflow close to the body of the user by being: adapted to be tightened around the body of the user; or adapted to be tightened around the body of the user by an additional adjustment device” (claim 4, lines 2-7), the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure of a portion or a torso portion that can generate a cooling airflow close to the body of the user. Page 7 of the specification filed on 1/12/2023 discloses the term “at least a portion, or at least a torso portion” but failed to disclose the corresponding structure of the at least a portion or at least a torso portion that can generate a cooling airflow.
Regarding the limitation “an intermediate padding element” (claim 10, line 6), the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure of an intermediate padding element. Page 11 of the specification filed on 1/12/2023 discloses the term “an intermediate padding element” but failed to disclose the corresponding structure of the intermediate padding element.
Regarding the limitations “a control unit” and “the control unit…is configured to regulate the insufflated air flow in response to the temperature measurements, breathing and/or cardiac measurements obtained from the sensors” (claim 13, line 3 and claim 14, lines 2-5), the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure of a control unit. Page 11 of the specification filed on 1/12/2023 discloses the term “a control unit” but failed to disclose the corresponding structure of the control unit.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Any remaining claims are rejected for their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 8 and 16 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paris (6,393,617) in view of Kim (KR 100933465) and Childers (4,458,680).
PNG
media_image1.png
1185
1158
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Paris discloses a ventilated cooling and protective garment (entire device shown in figs. 1-9) comprising: an outer layer comprising a semi air impermeable material (layer 16 of 14, see fig. 5, col 3, lines 37-48, Paris discloses that the fabric portion 16 is made of a conventional woven polyester fabric that is generally resistant to the passage of contaminated fluids and aerosols, which would be semi air impermeable material, it is noted that the claim is giving the option of a semi air impermeable material and the claim does not specify a permeability factor, therefore, any conventional woven polyester fabric that are resistant to passage of aerosols would be able to be semi permeable to air depending on the volume and speed of air hitting the fabric), the outer layer comprising a hood portion (hood portion is the head portion of 26 that is above 50, see fig. 7 for reference and col 6, lines 24-37) connected to a partial body portion (portion of 14 that is connected to head portion 26, see the portion below 50 comprising 30, 36 and 38, see col 6, lines 24-52, figs. 7-8), with one or more body parts opening each one surrounded by an annular body part tight seal (one of 38 on either the left and right arm portions 36, see fig. 7, col 6, lines 24-37, alternatively, the annular body part tight seal can be the portion of 14 comprising 100 or 110, see col 7, lines 47-63), the hood portion comprising a facial opening surrounded by a facial peripheral ring (see figs. 1-8 and the annotated-Paris fig. 5 above, 16 forms a facial peripheral ring (68) that has an opening, the opening is where the facial shield 20 covers); a facial shield (facial shield 20 having 78 and 80) comprising a transparent shield (78, fig. 5, col 7, lines 10-28) covering the facial opening (see the annotated-Paris fig. 5 above); and a facial shield support (12, 114, 146, 218, 220, 214, and 224, figs. 2-5) comprising an adjustment device (224 including 252 and 253, fig. 5, col 8, lines 23-26) configured to tighten facial shield support around a head of a user and configured to pull the facial peripheral ring against the head of the user (see col 6, lines 6-23 and col 8, lines 23-36, Paris discloses that the knob 224 is used to tighten strap 214 and because 214 is supporting helmet 12 which is connected to face shield 20 via interface formed by hook and loop 148 (see figs. 2-5 and col 3, line 65 to col 4, line 8 and col 7, lines 10-28), therefore, when the adjustment device tighten 214, the tightening of 214 would pull the facial peripheral ring 68 against the head of the user, since the ring 68 would be pulled towards the head and is positioned opposite of the head, if the head is trying to move forward while the ring 68 is being pulled towards the head, the ring 68 would be pulled against the head of the user, alternatively, due to the flexibility of 16 of 14, depending on how the hood portion having 16 and the ring formed by 68 are positioned relative to the user’s head, such as when a bottom portion of 68 is almost touching the chin of the user, by pulling a top portion of 68 around where 80 is attached to the helmet via hook and loop 148 using the adjustment system would cause the ring 68 closest to the chin at the chin area to be pulled against the user’s head at the chin area); and an air inlet (formed by 124 and 177, see fig. 5, relatively, the 124 and 177 are on the helmet 12 which is on the facial shield, therefore, the air inlet is on the facial shield) disposed on the facial shield and configured to insufflate air into the facial shield (fig. 5, col 2, lines 43-49 and col 5, line 30 to col 6, line 60, the fan 122 pulls air into the hood portion via the air inlet), an airflow path (see the annotated-Paris fig. 5 above, as shown, the airflow path is formed by 126a, 138 and 136, see figs. 3 and 5, col 3, line 49 to col 4, line 8) being set to produce a cooling airflow on the user body by: spacers (125a, 138, and 136) disposed on the facial peripheral ring and configured to provide a permeable close non-air-tight fitting between the facial peripheral ring and the head of the user, the spaces further configured to generate a cooling airflow passing through the close non-air-tight fitting, cooling the parts of the user in contact with the facial peripheral ring and surrounding areas (see the annotated-Paris fig. 5 above and col 3, line 49 to col 4, line 8 and col 2, lines 43-49 and col 5, line 30 to col 6, line 60, Paris discloses that airflow caused by the fan 122 would travel through the helmet to cool the user, furthermore, 125a, 138 and 136 would form a permeable non-airtight fitting since air is allowed to pass through it, but is closed in the sense that 124a, 138 and 136 are closed on other directions as shown in the drawing, furthermore, 125a, 138 and 136 are spaces since they separate 214 from an upper portion of 216/16 (see fig. 5), furthermore, the spacers are on the facial peripheral ring 68 relatively). Paris discloses that the facial shield (20) is fastened to ring (68) via adhesive (see col 7, line 10-28), wherein the adhesive can be interpreted as the facial peripheral connector for attaching the transparent shield to the facial peripheral ring of the hood portion, but fails to disclose a facial peripheral connector made of an air-tight fluid impermeable material and fails to disclose an air outlet defined by one or more air pressure relieve valves included in the partial body portion, producing an airflow path between the air inlet and the air outlet at least through the hood portion.
However, Kim teaches a facial peripheral connector made of an adhesive that is a fluid impermeable material air-tightly (see adhesive 30 in fig. 2 and page 18, Kim discloses that the connection part (CN) is sealed in an airtight state by an adhesive 30).
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 facial peripheral connector of Paris to be the facial peripheral connector being an adhesive that is fluid impermeable and air-tight material as taught by Kim for the purpose of providing an adhesive that is fluid impermeable to fasten the facial shield to the ring of Paris, thereby, providing protection to the wearer.
The modified Paris fails to disclose an air outlet defined by one or more air pressure relieve valves included in the partial body portion, producing an airflow path between the air inlet and the air outlet at least through the hood portion.
Childers teaches an air outlet defined by one or more pressure relieve valves (56, figs. 1-4B) included in a body portion (garment 10 comprising 12, figs. 1-4B, col 3, line 59 to col 4, line 52), producing an airflow path between an air inlet (air inlet formed by 24, see fig. 7, as shown, 23 is connected to the interior of the suit 12, see col 4, lines 42-52) and the air outlet (see col 6, lines 50-68).
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 partial body portion of the modified Paris to have the one or more pressure relieve valves as taught by Childers for the purpose of providing safety to the wearer by preventing over pressurization and to provide a constant airflow outward thereby preventing contaminants from entering (see col 6, lines 50-68 of Childers).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Paris discloses that the spacers are discrete protruding spacers (126a, 138 and 136 of Paris) configured to keep an air-permeable gap between the facial periphery ring and the head or the user (see the annotated-Paris fig. 5 above, as shown, the spacers (126a, 138 and 136 of Paris) are three dimensional structures and relatively, are discrete protruding spaces, furthermore, there is an air-permeable gap between the facial peripheral ring and the head of the user), the spacers being disposed on a surface of the facial peripheral ring (68 of Paris) and being directed towards an interior of the hood portion (see the annotated-Paris fig. 5 above, as shown, the spacers are formed on a surface of the 68 where 148 is positioned).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Paris discloses a tightening device (portion of 16 that comprises 98 of Paris and the fan 122 and the housing 120 comprising 178 of Paris, fig. 5 of Paris) of the hood portion adapted to tight the hood portion around a head of the user (portion of 16 comprising 98 is designed to tighten the hood portion comprising 98 with the help of 120 and lip portion 178 around a head of the user, here the term “around” is being interpreted as nearby, alternatively, the elastic band 98 allows the hood portion to be tighten to lip portion 178 around the head in that the tightening device allows 16 to be mounted to 178 of 12 to allow 16 to be wrapped around the head of the user, therefore, the tightening device (formed by portion of 16 comprising 98, 122 and 120 of Paris) tighten the hood portion around the user’s head), the tightening device further configured to define a narrow chamber between the hood portion and the user’s head and to generate a cooling airflow close to the head of the user (see the annotated-Paris fig. 5 above, as shown, the tightening device 98 is the portion of 16 that comprises 98 which forms a narrow chamber, furthermore, the tightening device seals the helmet and filter media 18 to the hood, which creates an airflow pathway that would allow air to be deflected to the user’s face to the user, thereby, with the help of the fan 122 would generate cooling airflow close to the head of the user, as shown, the airflow generated by fan 122 is 184, which is provided to the user to cool the user, see abstract and see col 7, lines 28-46 and col 8, lines 38-54 of Paris). The modified Paris further discloses that the tightening device is an additional adjustment device, different to the adjustment device to tighten the facial shield support around a head of a user (see the annotated-Paris fig. 5 above, as disclosed, the tightening device (formed by portion of 16 comprising 98, 122 and 120 of Paris) is an additional adjustment device that is different from the adjustment device to tighten the facial shield support around a head of the user)).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Paris discloses at least a portion of the partial body portion is configured to generate a cooling airflow close to the body of the user by being: adapted to be tightened around the body of the user (another of 38 on either the left and right arm portions 36, see fig. 7, col 6, lines 24-37 of Paris, alternatively, the portion can be the portion of 14 comprising 100 or 110, see col 7, lines 47-63 of Paris, these portions are configured to be closed such that cooling airflow can be limited to the body of the user, the portions is adapted to be tightened around the body of the user and by tightening, the portions would redirected cool air to a particular body of the user, thereby, it is generating a cooling airflow to that particular body, therefore, to redirect or allow cooling airflow to go to a particular body part would be generating cooling air flow).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Paris discloses that an inner side of the partial body portion comprises a plurality of discrete protruding spacer nodes (see zipper 46 in fig. 9 of Paris and col 6, lines 38-52 of Paris, Paris discloses that there are zipper formed on the partial body portion, relatively, the surface that the zipper extends from are considered as part of an inner side of the body portion, zippers would have protruding nodes formed by teeth, the protruding nodes can be considered as spacers since they form a three dimensional structure).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Paris discloses at least a portion of the protective garment comprises an inner perforated layer (176 of Paris, see fig. 5 and col 4, line 30 to col 5, line 9) spaced from the outer layer by a plurality of discrete protruding spacer nodes (see the annotated-Paris fig. 5 above, see the lip of 178 of Paris, which forms discrete protruding spacer nodes), an air source (fan 122 of Paris, see the annotated-Paris fig. 5 above, the space where 178 meet 16 is a space that is between the outer layer and the inner perforated layer, and the fan is connectable to the space) being connectable to the space defined between the outer layer and the inner perforated layer, an inner side of the inner perforated layer also comprises a plurality of discrete protruding spacer nodes (see fig. 1, there are a plurality of aperture 177 formed on 176, therefore, relatively, there are protrusions between the aperture, and relatively, the protrusion is part of an inner side of the inner perforated layer 176 of Paris).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Paris discloses that the ventilated and protective garment is connected to a wearable autonomous air supply (see fan 122 and voltage converter assembly 226, see col 5, lines 36-61 of Paris and col 7, line 64 to col 8, line 37 of Paris).
Claim 6 as best understood is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paris (6,393,617) in view of Kim (KR 100933465) and Childers (4,458,680) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boehringer (WO 2008131812).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Paris fails to disclose that the facial peripheral connector includes a releasable seal comprising a zipper seal or Velcro seal and that the facial peripheral connection configured to allow a separation of the transparent shield from the protective garment.
However, Boehringer teaches a facial peripheral connector that includes a fluid impermeable material air-tightly attaching a mask to a hood portion, wherein the facial peripheral connector includes a releasable seal comprising a zipper seal or Velcro seal, the facial peripheral connection configured to allow a separation of the mask and the hood (see paragraph 0057, “wherein the respirator is connected to the hood by means of a preferably gas-tight zipper or hook and loop fastener”, zipper would allow separation, furthermore, hook and loop would read on Velcro since Velcro is a trademark name for a form of hook and loop, it is noted that the claim only requires zipper or Velcro).
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 facial peripheral connector of the modified Paris to be a releasable seal as taught by Boehringer for the purpose of providing an alternative connector that is air-tight and that would allow ease of replacement, repairing and cleaning of parts (see paragraph 0057 of Boehringer).
Claim 7 as best understood is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paris (6,393,617) in view of Kim (KR 100933465) and Childers (4,458,680) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yazdi (11,697,036).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Paris discloses a bottom of a shield (see the annotated-Paris fig. 5 above), but fails to disclose that the air outlet of the facial shield is integrated in the facial peripheral connector.
However, Yazdi teaches a face shield comprising an air outlet that is a pressure relieve valve (see valve 128 at a bottom of face shield 124, see fig. 1C and col 6, line 62 to col 7, line 3).
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 a bottom of the facial shield of the modified Paris to have the outlet valve as taught by Yazdi for the purpose of providing an additional valve to help relieve pressure and moisture buildup, thereby, providing comfort to the user (col 6, line 62 to col 7, line 3 of Yazdi).
After the modification, the air outlet is of the facial shield and is integrated in the facial peripheral connector (the inner peripheral connector is redefined as the adhesive layer of Kim, 80 of Paris and a portion bottom portion of 20 that supports the outlet valve of Yazdi).
Claims 9-11 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paris (6,393,617) in view of Kim (KR 100933465) and Childers (4,458,680) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burns (7,093,302).
Regarding claims 9-10, the modified Paris fails to disclose an annular track formed on the transparent shield as an integral part thereof and made of the same material as the transparent shield, the facial peripheral connector being attached and retained to the annular track through an annular coupling configuration complementary to the annular track and tightly fitted thereto, wherein the annular track is defined in an inner side of the transparent shield and is directed towards the facial opening, and the transparent shield extends beyond the annular track on the upper region thereof defining an upper support intended to be vertically supported on a top area of the user head, either directly or through an intermediate padding element attached to an inner side of the upper support.
However, Burns teaches a facial peripheral connector (38, 43, 39, 40, 50, fig. 3, col 4, line 20 to col 6, line 53), an annular track (44 and 46 in fig. 3 or alternatively 62 and 53 in fig. 4, col 5, lines 27-47 and col 6, line 55 to col 7, line 4, Burns discloses that 44 and 62 are located at substantially peripheral portions of inside surface 14 of face shield, therefore, would form an annular track) formed on a facial shield (16, fig. 2, col 4, lines 20-45) as an integral part thereof and made of the same material as the shield (col 5, lines 27-47, Burns discloses that 44 is integrally molded on inside surface of the face shield, therefore, would be formed on the same material, alternatively, see fig. 4, as shown, 62