DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 14, 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 and 18 recites “the inlet vane guide”, claim 5 and 18 should read “the inlet guide vane” for proper antecedent basis;
Claim 14 recites “the outer surface”, should read “an outer surface” for proper antecedent basis;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 6, 14, and 20 recites “a substantial part”, based on the applicant’s disclosure, see applicant’s specification, page 7, the limitation “substantial” will be interpreted as 50%, 75% , or 90% of the total area.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR20170069674, machine translation accessed 9/16/2025 relied upon herein), in view of Moulton et al. (US20180008848), hereafter Moulton.
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses a device adapted to be mounted on the head of a person (device shown in Fig. 1 and 2, par. 0025 discloses a helmet, which is mounted on a person’s head), for generating an isolation barrier for airborne pathogens between the person and the environment (par. 0030, “purified air can be provided… thereby forming a kind of air curtain in front of the face”), the device comprising: an outer surface layer (See Fig. 3, outer surface of the module 30) enclosing at least one chamber between itself and the person's head (Fig. 9, a chamber is defined by an air channel 31 enclosed by the outer surface layer); at least one filter element mounted in the outer surface layer (Fig. 3, par. 0033, “a plurality of filters (f1, f2) may be provided on the inside of the suction part (40)”), the filter element adapted to allow passage of filtered air from the environment into the at least one chamber (See Fig. 5 and 6, air flows through the filter into the chamber); a fan adapted to produce a flow of filtered air through the at least one filter element and into the at least one chamber (Fig. 6, fan 35, the fan produces the air flow through the filter); and a lateral slot situated in the lower forward region of the chamber (Fig. 4, discharge portion 70), in a position that is in front of the forehead of the person when the device is mounted on the head of the person, the length of the slot extending laterally across the device (par. 0030, “the discharge portion (70) can be formed along the upper side of the transparent protective device (60)”; the prior art discloses the slot 70 is formed along the length of the device, therefore extending laterally), and the slot having a width smaller than the length (See Fig. 3 and 4, the length extends along the lateral length of element 60, therefore the width is smaller than the length), such that the flow of filtered air within the at least one chamber is directed out of the slot as a flow of filtered air in front of the face of the person (par. 0030, “purified air can be provided along the inner surface of the transparent protective device (60), thereby forming a kind of air curtain in front of the face”),
Park does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one filter element occupies a substantial part of the outer surface layer.
However, Moulton teaches a filter device (Fig. 1A), comprising of an outer surface layer (Fig. 1A, outer surface of element 14), and at least one filter element (Fig. 1A, filter element 22), wherein the at least one filter element occupies a substantial part of the outer surface layer (Fig. 1A, par. 0056, “the support elements of the mask body and front grill element cover or sandwich no more than about 50%, 40%, 30%, 20%, 15%, 10%, 5% or 2% of the surface area of the filter element”; In case where the outer surface of the support element covers 50% or 10% of the filter element, the filter element occupies 50% or 90% of the outer surface, accordingly; therefore occupies a substantial part, see claim interpretation section above). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Park, with the filter element of Moulton, and have the filter element occupies a substantial part of the outer surface layer, to maximize airflow through the filter and ensure filtration of airflow as taught by Moulton (Moulton, par. 0056).
The modified Park further discloses that the resistance of the at least one filter element to the air flow therethrough, is minimized (Examiner Notes: The prior art discloses the same structure, therefore it is capable of performing the claimed function of minimizing the resistance of air flow, see MPEP 2144).
Regarding Claim 14, Park discloses a head mounted cap (Fig. 1, par. 0013, a cap comprising of an air purification module and a helmet body) for generating an isolation barrier for airborne pathogens between a person and the environment (par. 0030, “purified air can be provided… thereby forming a kind of air curtain in front of the face”), the cap comprising: an internal chamber beneath the outer surface (Fig. 9, a chamber is defined by an air channel 31 enclosed by an outer surface), having fluid communication with the air around the cap through an area of filter material (Fig. 3, par. 0033, “a plurality of filters (f1, f2) may be provided on the inside of the suction part (40)”; See Fig. 5 and 6, air flows through the filter into the chamber), thereby allowing passage of filtered air from the environment into the at least one chamber (Fig. 5 and 6); and a fan adapted to project a flow of filtered air from the chamber (Fig. 6, fan 35) through a lateral slot situated in the bottom surface of a visor of the cap (Fig. 4, discharge portion 70), such that the flow of filtered air within the at least one chamber is directed out of the slot as a curtain-like flow of filtered air in front of the face of the person (par. 0030, “purified air can be provided along the inner surface of the transparent protective device (60), thereby forming a kind of air curtain in front of the face”).
Park does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one filter element occupies a substantial part of the outer surface layer.
However, Moulton teaches a filter device (Fig. 1A), comprising of an outer surface layer (Fig. 1A, outer surface of element 14), and at least one filter element (Fig. 1A, filter element 22), wherein the at least one filter element occupies a substantial part of the outer surface layer (Fig. 1A, par. 0056, “the support elements of the mask body and front grill element cover or sandwich no more than about 50%, 40%, 30%, 20%, 15%, 10%, 5% or 2% of the surface area of the filter element”; In case where the outer surface of the support element covers 50% or 10% of the filter element, the filter element occupies 50% or 90% of the outer surface, accordingly; therefore occupies a substantial part, see claim interpretation section above). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Park, with the filter element of Moulton, and have the filter element occupies a substantial part of the outer surface layer, to maximize airflow through the filter and ensure filtration of airflow as taught by Moulton (Moulton, par. 0056).
The modified Park further discloses that the resistance of the at least one filter element to the air flow therethrough, is minimized (Examiner Notes: The prior art discloses the same structure, therefore it is capable of performing the claimed function of minimizing the resistance of air flow, see MPEP 2144).
Regarding Claim 15, the modified Park discloses the cap according to claim 14, wherein the fan is a cross-flow fan disposed in close proximity to the slot (Park, Fig. 6, fan 35, the fan is adjacent to the slot; the fan draw in air tangentially, therefore it is a cross-flow fan), such that it collects the filtered air from the internal chamber and passes it into the slot (Park, par. 0014, “A fan may be provided inside the above-mentioned mounting portion to circulate the air flowing in through the air channel and blow it to the discharge portion”).
Regarding Claim 19, the modified Park discloses the cap according to claim 14, wherein the at least one filter element comprises a number of separate filter elements mounted in the outer surface layer (Park, par. 0033, “a plurality of filters (f1, f2) may be provided on the inside of the suction part (40). These filters (f1, f2) can be applied as a pre-filter, a fine dust filter (HEPA filter), and a smoke (deodorization) filter, and multiple filters can be arranged in series”).
Regarding Claim 20, the modified Park discloses The cap according to claim 14, wherein the at least one filter element comprises a single filter element covering at least a substantial part of the area of the outer surface layer (Park, par, 0013, “…wherein the air channel includes at least one filter for purifying outside air”, the filter element is a single element; Moulton, par. 0056).
Regarding Claim 21, Park discloses the cap according to claim 20, wherein the substantial part of the area of the outer surface layer is any one of:(i) 50%, (ii) 75% or (iii) 90% (Moulton, par. 0056, In case where the outer surface of the support element covers 50% or 10% of the filter element, the filter element occupies 50% or 90% of the outer surface, accordingly).
Regarding Claim 24, the modified Park discloses the cap according to claim 14, adapted to receive at least one battery for powering the fan (Park, par. 0032, “Here, the fan (35) can be electrically driven by a small battery or rechargeable battery”).
Alternatively, Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 11, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Moulton, further in view of Emery (US11131310), hereafter Emery.
In the alternative to the rejection of Claim 1 above, regarding Claim 1, Park discloses a device adapted to be mounted on the head of a person (device shown in Fig. 1 and 2, par. 0025 discloses a helmet, which is mounted on a person’s head), for generating an isolation barrier for airborne pathogens between the person and the environment (par. 0030, “purified air can be provided… thereby forming a kind of air curtain in front of the face”), the device comprising: an outer surface layer (See Fig. 3, outer surface of the module 30) enclosing at least one chamber between itself and the person's head (Fig. 9, a chamber is defined by an air channel 31 enclosed by the outer surface layer); at least one filter element mounted in the outer surface layer (Fig. 3, par. 0033, “a plurality of filters (f1, f2) may be provided on the inside of the suction part (40)”), the filter element adapted to allow passage of filtered air from the environment into the at least one chamber (See Fig. 5 and 6, air flows through the filter into the chamber); a fan adapted to produce a flow of filtered air through the at least one filter element and into the at least one chamber (Fig. 6, fan 35, the fan produces the air flow through the filter);
Park discloses a lateral slot (Fig. 6, lateral slot 70), but does not specifically disclose the lateral slot situated in the lower forward region of the chamber, in a position that is in front of the forehead of the person when the device is mounted on the head of the person, the length of the slot extending laterally across the device and the slot having a width smaller than the length.
However, Emery teaches an airflow device (Abstract, device shown in Fig. 4), adapted to be mounted on a person’s head (Fig. 4), for generating airflow in front of the person’s face (see Fig. 5, air output 272, col. 4 line 19-29). The device comprises of a chamber (Fig. 4, internal space of hat 250) a lateral slot situated in the lower forward region of the chamber (See Fig. 4 and 5, a lateral slot is formed as claimed where air output 272 is flowing out), in a position that is in front of the forehead of the person when the device is mounted on the head of the person, the length of the slot extending laterally across the device (See Fig. 4 and 5), and the slot having a width smaller than the length (See Fig. 4 and 5, the slot is formed across the length of the hat 250, therefore the width is smaller than the length). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Park, with the lateral slot of Emery, and have the slot of Park to extend laterally across the length of the device, to output the air in front of the user’s face more efficiently as taught by Emery (Emery, col. 4 line 19-29).
The modified Park further discloses that the flow of filtered air within the at least one chamber is directed out of the slot as a flow of filtered air in front of the face of the person (Park, par. 0030, “purified air can be provided along the inner surface of the transparent protective device (60), thereby forming a kind of air curtain in front of the face”; the air would still be directed out in front of the face after the modification, as the slot is formed laterally across the length of the device).
The modified Park does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one filter element occupies a substantial part of the outer surface layer.
However, Moulton teaches a filter device (Fig. 1A), comprising of an outer surface layer (Fig. 1A, outer surface of element 14), and at least one filter element (Fig. 1A, filter element 22), wherein the at least one filter element occupies a substantial part of the outer surface layer (Fig. 1A, par. 0056, “the support elements of the mask body and front grill element cover or sandwich no more than about 50%, 40%, 30%, 20%, 15%, 10%, 5% or 2% of the surface area of the filter element”; In case where the outer surface of the support element covers 50% or 10% of the filter element, the filter element occupies 50% or 90% of the outer surface, accordingly; therefore occupies a substantial part, see claim interpretation section above). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Park, with the filter element of Moulton, and have the filter element occupies a substantial part of the outer surface layer, to maximize airflow through the filter and ensure filtration of airflow as taught by Moulton (Moulton, par. 0056).
The modified Park further discloses that the resistance of the at least one filter element to the air flow therethrough, is minimized (Examiner Notes: The prior art discloses the same structure, therefore it is capable of performing the claimed function of minimizing the resistance of air flow, see MPEP 2144).
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Park discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one chamber comprises a single chamber, (See Park Fig. 5, a single chamber is formed by the outer surface of device 30 under the filter portion 40) and the blower fan is a cross-flow fan disposed in close proximity to the slot (Park, Fig. 6, fan 35, the fan is adjacent to the slot and would remain so after the modification; Park Fig. 6 shows the fan draw in air tangentially, therefore it is a cross-flow fan), such that it collects the filtered air from the single chamber and passes it into the slot (Park, par. 0014, “A fan may be provided inside the above-mentioned mounting portion to circulate the air flowing in through the air channel and blow it to the discharge portion”).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Park discloses The device according to claim 2, but is silent on wherein the fan is mounted in a visor at the forward end of the device, with the front-most end of the visor operative as an inlet guide vane to the cross-flow fan.
However, Emery further teaches wherein the fan is mounted in a visor at the forward end of the device (See Fig. 5, a visor is defined at the forward end of the device, and the fan 316 is mounted in the visor), with the front-most end of the visor operative as an inlet guide vane to the fan (See Fig. 5, air intake 270; the air flowing into the fan is guided by the visor portion upstream to the fan). Both Park and Emery use the fan (Park, Fig. 6 fan 35; Emery, Fig. 5 fan 316) to draw air from the internal chamber (Park Fig. 6; Emery Fig. 5, the chamber defined by the upper section of the helmet body), to the lateral slot (Park, Fig. 6, lateral slot 70; Emery Fig. 5, where air output 272 is flowing out). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known device of Park with the fan and visor of Emery, and modify the shape of the internal chamber of Park to define a visor at the forward end of the device, and mount the fan in the visor, for an increased air intake and output, and higher air flow efficiency as the fan is positioned near the slot as taught by Emery (Emery, col. 4, line 12-28).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Park discloses the device according to claim 2, wherein the fan is mounted in the forward end of the visor (Emery, Fig. 5), with the inlet aperture facing the internal chamber (See Emery Fig. 5, after the modification, the internal chamber would be upstream to the fan and therefore the aperture is facing the internal chamber to allow air flow from the internal chamber to the fan, see airflow direction labeled by arrow 270).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Park discloses the device according to claim 3, wherein the inlet vane guide has a smooth internal profile, to assist in the efficient flow of air into the fan (Emery, col. 4 line 12-28 discloses more efficient air flow, Fig. 5 shows a smooth internal profile).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Park discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one filter element comprises either: a number of separate filter elements mounted in the outer surface layer (Park, par. 0033, “a plurality of filters (f1, f2) may be provided on the inside of the suction part (40).”;), or a single filter element covering at least a substantial part of the area of the outer surface layer (Park, par, 0013, “…wherein the air channel includes at least one filter for purifying outside air”, the filter element is a single element; Moulton, par. 0056, In case where the outer surface of the support element covers 50% or 10% of the filter element, the filter element occupies 50% or 90% of the outer surface, accordingly).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Park discloses the device according to claim 6, but does not specifically disclose wherein the substantial part of the area of the outer surface layer is any one of:(i) 50%, (ii) 75% or (iii) 90% (Moulton, par. 0056, In case where the outer surface of the support element covers 50% or 10% of the filter element, the filter element occupies 50% or 90% of the outer surface, accordingly).
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Park discloses the device according to Claim 1, adapted to receive at least one battery for powering the fan (Park, par. 0032, “Here, the fan (35) can be electrically driven by a small battery or rechargeable battery”).
Regarding Claim 16, the modified Park discloses the cap according to claim 15, but is silent on wherein the fan is mounted either in a visor at the forward end of the cap, with the front-most end of the visor operative as an inlet guide vane to the cross-flow fan, or in the forward end of the visor, with the inlet aperture facing the internal chamber.
However, Emery teaches an airflow device (Abstract, device shown in Fig. 4), adapted to be mounted on a person’s head (Fig. 4), comprising of a fan (Fig. 5, fan 316), for generating airflow in front of the person’s face (see Fig. 5, air output 272, col. 4 line 19-29). Emery further teaches wherein the fan is mounted in a visor at the forward end of the device (See Fig. 5, a visor is defined at the forward end of the device, and the fan 316 is mounted in the visor), with the front-most end of the visor operative as an inlet guide vane to the fan (See Fig. 5, air intake 270; the air flowing into the fan is guided by the visor portion upstream to the fan). Both Park and Emery use the fan (Park, Fig. 6 fan 35; Emery, Fig. 5 fan 316) to draw air from the internal chamber (Park Fig. 6; Emery Fig. 5, the chamber defined by the upper section of the helmet body), to the lateral slot (Park, Fig. 6, lateral slot 70; Emery Fig. 5, where air output 272 is flowing out). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known device of Park with the fan and visor of Emery, and modify the shape of the internal chamber of Park to define a visor at the forward end of the device, and mount the fan in the visor, for an increased air intake and output, and higher air flow efficiency as the fan is positioned near the slot as taught by Emery (Emery, col. 4, line 12-28).
Regarding Claim 18, the modified Park discloses the cap according to claim 16, wherein the inlet vane guide has a smooth internal profile, to assist in the efficient flow of air into the fan (Emery, col. 4 line 12-28 discloses more efficient air flow, Fig. 5 shows a smooth internal profile).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Moulton, in view of Emery, further in view of Waters (USRE33286), hereafter Waters.
Regarding Claim 12, the modified Park discloses the device according to claim 11, but is silent on wherein the at least one battery is a chain of batteries mounted in a rim of the device.
However, Waters teaches an air conditioning device (device shown in Fig. 1), comprising a fan (Fig. 1-3, a fan 36), powered by a battery (Fig. 1, batteries 22), wherein the at least one battery is a chain of batteries (See Fig. 1, col. 3 line 46-63, “One of said electrical contacts is electrically connected with the motor 28 by a lead 40 (FIG. 1) and the opposite electrical contact of the same bracket 24 is electrically connected with one contact of the other bracket 24 by a lead 42”; the two batteries depicted in Fig. 1 are connected in series by lead 42, therefore they are a chain of batteries) mounted in a rim of the device (See Fig. 1, the batteries are mounted in brackets 24 around the rim of the device). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known device of Park, with the battery assembly of Waters, to evenly distribute the batteries while provide space for air moving through the fan as taught by Waters (Waters, col. 3 line 46-63).
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickey (US5113853), hereafter Dickey, in view of Moulton.
Regarding Claim 1, Dickey discloses a device adapted to be mounted on the head of a person (Fig. 1), for generating an isolation barrier for airborne pathogens between the person and the environment (Abstract), the device comprising: an outer surface layer (Fig. 1, outer surface of the respirator helmet 2) enclosing at least one chamber between itself and the person's head (See Fig. 1, a chamber is formed by the helmet 2); at least one filter element mounted in the outer surface layer (Fig. 1 and 3, an air filter is disposed at space 21 which is part of the outer surface layer), the filter element adapted to allow passage of filtered air from the environment into the at least one chamber (col. 3, line 7-9, “a cylindrical intake air filter 22 to cover this space 21 so that all intake air drawn in by the fan must pass therethrough”); a fan adapted to produce a flow of filtered air through the at least one filter element and into the at least one chamber (Fig. 1, fan motor assembly 10; see Fig. 1, arrows representing airflow direction); and a lateral slot situated in the lower forward region of the chamber (Fig. 1, col. 3, line 37-39, “an anterior aperture 33 through which the filtered air is directed over the forehead”), in a position that is in front of the forehead of the person when the device is mounted on the head of the person (Fig. 1, col. 3, line 37-39), the length of the slot extending laterally across the device (See Fig. 1), and the slot having a width smaller than the length (See Fig. 1, aperture 33 has a length larger than width), such that the flow of filtered air within the at least one chamber is directed out of the slot as a flow of filtered air in front of the face of the person (col. 3 line 37-40, “an anterior aperture 33 through which the filtered air is directed over the forehead, beneath visor 7 to nose and mouth”).
Dickey is silent on that the at least one filter element occupies a substantial part of the outer surface layer.
However, Moulton teaches a filter device (Fig. 1A), comprising of an outer surface layer (Fig. 1A, outer surface of element 14), and at least one filter element (Fig. 1A, filter element 22), wherein the at least one filter element occupies a substantial part of the outer surface layer (Fig. 1A, par. 0056, “the support elements of the mask body and front grill element cover or sandwich no more than about 50%, 40%, 30%, 20%, 15%, 10%, 5% or 2% of the surface area of the filter element”; In case where the outer surface of the support element covers 50% or 10% of the filter element, the filter element occupies 50% or 90% of the outer surface, accordingly; therefore occupies a substantial part, see claim interpretation section above). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the known device of Dickey, with the filter element of Moulton, and have the filter element occupies a substantial part of the outer surface layer, to maximize airflow through the filter and ensure filtration of airflow as taught by Moulton (Moulton, par. 0056).
The modified Dickey further discloses that the resistance of the at least one filter element to the air flow therethrough, is minimized (Examiner Notes: The prior art discloses the same structure, therefore it is capable of performing the claimed function of minimizing the resistance of air flow, see MPEP 2144).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Dickey discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one chamber comprises an outer chamber (Dickey, Fig. 1, outer chamber defined by cover 16, separated by a wall 29) and an inner chamber (Dickey, Fig. 1, air space 5, defined by a wall 29 and shell 3) separated by a partition wall (Dickey, Fig. 1, a wall 29), and the blower fan is an axial fan mounted in the partition wall (Dickey, Fig. 1, the fan moves air in a direction parallel to its rotating shaft, therefore an axial fan), such that it collects the filtered air from the outer chamber and transfers it into the inner chamber for conveying to the slot (Dickey, col. 3, line 7-9, “a cylindrical intake air filter 22 to cover this space 21 so that all intake air drawn in by the fan must pass therethrough”; Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, in view of Moulton, further in view of Waters.
Regarding Claim 25, Park discloses the cap according to claim 24, but is silent on wherein the at least one battery is a chain of batteries mounted in a rim of the cap.
However, Waters teaches an air conditioning device (device shown in Fig. 1), comprising a fan (Fig. 1-3, a fan 36), powered by a battery (Fig. 1, batteries 22), wherein the at least one battery is a chain of batteries (See Fig. 1, col. 3 line 46-63, “One of said electrical contacts is electrically connected with the motor 28 by a lead 40 (FIG. 1) and the opposite electrical contact of the same bracket 24 is electrically connected with one contact of the other bracket 24 by a lead 42”; the two batteries depicted in Fig. 1 are connected in series by lead 42, therefore they are a chain of batteries) mounted in a rim of the device (See Fig. 1, the batteries are mounted in brackets 24 around the rim of the device). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to further modify the known device of Park, with the battery assembly of Waters, to evenly distribute the batteries while provide space for air moving through the fan as taught by Waters (Waters, col. 3 line 46-63).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US3822698 discloses a wearable air purifying helmet, producing an air curtain to the user’s face, comprising of an outer chamber, inner chamber, and an axial fan mounted in a partition wall.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRIS HANYU GONG whose telephone number is (703)756-5898. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. 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.
/KRIS HANYU GONG/
Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/VICTORIA MURPHY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 4100