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
Per the amendments to the drawings, the drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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
Claims 1, 8, 10, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Guy (US 3822698 A) in view of Braun (US 4462399 A).
Regarding claim 1, Guy discloses the breath protection device (Guy Figure 1) comprising:
a head cover (Figures 1 and 2 below; ‘12’: hat = head cover);
a transparent face covering shield coupled to the head cover (Figures 1 and 2 below; ‘14’ = transparent face shield coupled on head cover);
wherein the head cover and the transparent face covering shield define a breathing zone (Figures 1 and 2 below; breathing zone is inside of the face shield ‘14’);
an air filtration unit configured to filter air from outside (Figures 1 and 2 below; ‘37’ is the air filter for filtering outside air, yellow line is used to show the filter layer)
and an air circulation unit configured to provide the filtered air to the breathing zone, thereby forming a continuous protective air curtain therein (Figures 1 and 2 below; where ‘28’ is a blower = fan = air circulation unit, connected to air filter to filter air and the protective air curtain is thus provided into the breathing zone through either the visor or the top of the hat).
Guy is silent to wherein the air filtration unit comprises a removable HEPA filtering material component.
Braun discloses a powered air respirator helmet and cartridge wherein:
the air filtration unit comprises a removable HEPA filtering material component (Braun [015]; where the filter cartridge is a HEPA filter, [08]; where the filter cartridge seal blocks contaminated air and allows for the easy replacement of the air filter cartridge – thereby being removable).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the breath protection device of Guy by replacing the filter of the air filtration unit with a filter that is a removable HEPA filtering component as taught by Braun, since, this type of filter meets the 99.97% HEPA efficiency requirement to remove airborne particles and because this configuration allows for the easy replacement of the air filter as needed (Braun [015]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Guy further discloses the breath protection device of claim 1, wherein the transparent face covering shield comprises a curved portion (Figures 1 and 2 below; ‘14’ transparent face shield is curved);
Regarding claim 10, modified Guy further discloses the breath protection device of claim 1, wherein the filtered air flows down within the breathing zone (Figures 1 and 2 below; where the air filter is positioned with the fan to direct air from the top of the head down the ‘breathing zone’).
Regarding claim 11, modified Guy further discloses the breath protection device of claim 1, wherein the air filtration unit and the air circulation unit are disposed on the head cover (Figure 1 below; where blower and filter are located on the head cover portion and Figure 2 below where the visor ‘13’ is a part of the head cover as well).
Regarding claim 12, modified Guy further discloses the breath protection device of claim 11, wherein the air filtration unit and the air circulation unit are disposed on a visor portion of the head cover (Figure 2 below; where blower and filter are located on the visor portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
759
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Figures 1-3 of Guy.
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image2.png
829
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Annotated Figures 4-6 of Guy.
Claims 2-6, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Guy (US 3822698 A) in view of Braun (US 4462399 A) and further in view of Hill (US 3688314 A).
Regarding claim 2, modified Guy discloses the breath protection device of claim 1 above, but fails to disclose a gaiter detachably coupled to the transparent face covering shield.
Hill discloses the breath protection device of 1, further comprising:
a gaiter detachable coupled to the transparent face covering shield (Hill [019]; collar portion (gaiter) has fastening means of snap fasteners and [016] lines 5-9; where you can disconnect the collar portion from the face shield).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the breath protection device of modified Guy to have a gaiter that can be detachably coupled to the transparent face shield as taught by Hill, since, a collar or gaiter protects the wearer against contact with whatever harmful elements may be present in the external environment towards the neck region (Hill [03] lines 11-12).
Regarding claim 3, modified Guy in view of Hill further discloses the breath protection device of claim 2.
Modified Guy fails to disclose a gaiter and wherein the gaiter is stretchable.
Hill discloses the breath protection device of claim 2 above:
wherein the gaiter is stretchable (Hill [019] lines 1-2 and Figure 1: ‘24’; neck portion/collar (gaiter) made with a flexible fabric).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the breath protection device of modified Guy to have a gaiter that is stretchable as taught by Hill, since, a collar or gaiter with a stretchable material helps to not have a tear when sealing with the helmet or face shield (Hill [019] lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 4, modified Guy in view of Hill further discloses the breath protection device of claim 2 above;
further comprising a lower frame disposed on a lower portion of the transparent face covering shield (Figure 2 above; lower shield has the frame ‘23’ and Hill Figure 2; lower flange ‘36’ – lower frame);
Regarding claim 5, modified Guy in view of Hill discloses the breath protection device of claim 4 above, and further discloses:
wherein the gaiter is detachable coupled to the lower frame (Hill [019]; collar portion (gaiter) has fastening means of snap fasteners and [03] lines 1-3 and [014]; where you can disconnect the collar portion from the face shield’s lower flange frame).
Regarding claim 6, modified Guy in view of Hill further discloses the breath protection device of claim 5 above, and further discloses:
wherein the gaiter is detachable coupled to the lower frame through a snap fastener (Hill [019]; collar portion (gaiter) has fastening means of snap fasteners and [03] lines 1-3 and [014]; where you can disconnect the collar portion from the face shield’s lower flange frame).
Regarding claim 14, Guy discloses the breath protection device, comprising:
a head cover (Figures 1 and 2 above; ‘12’: hat = head cover);
a transparent face covering shield coupled to the head cover (Figures 1 and 2 above; ‘14’ = transparent face shield coupled on head cover);
wherein the head cover and the transparent face covering shield define a breathing zone (Figures 1 and 2 above; breathing zone is inside of the face shield ‘14’);
an air filtration unit configured to filter air from outside (Figures 1 and 2 above; ‘37’ is the air filter for filtering outside air, yellow line is used to show the filter layer);
and an air circulation unit configured to provide the filtered air to the breathing zone, thereby forming a continuous protective air curtain therein (Figures 1 and 2 above; where ‘28’ is a blower = fan = air circulation unit, connected to air filter to filter air and the protective air curtain is thus provided into the breathing zone through either the visor or the top of the hat);
Guy is silent to wherein the air filtration unit comprises a removable HEPA filtering material component.
Braun discloses a powered air respirator helmet and cartridge wherein:
the air filtration unit comprises a removable HEPA filtering material component (Braun [015]; where the filter cartridge is a HEPA filter, [08]; where the filter cartridge seal blocks contaminated air and allows for the easy replacement of the air filter cartridge – thereby being removable).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the breath protection device of Guy by replacing the filter of the air filtration unit with a filter that is a removable HEPA filtering component as taught by Braun, since, this type of filter meets the 99.97% HEPA efficiency requirement to remove airborne particles and because this configuration allows for the easy replacement of the air filter as needed (Braun [015]).
Modified Guy fails to disclose a gaiter detachably coupled to the transparent face covering shield, wherein the head cover, the transparent face covering shield, and the gaiter define a breathing zone.
Hill discloses the breath protection device, wherein:
a gaiter is detachably coupled to the transparent face covering shield, and wherein the head cover, the transparent face covering shield, and the gaiter define a breathing zone (Hill Figure 1; where the sealing connection of all the elements defines a breathing zone and collar/gaiter has fastening means of snap fasteners and [016] lines 5-9; where you can disconnect the collar portion from the face shield).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the breath protection device of modified Guy to have a gaiter that can be detachably coupled to the transparent face shield as taught by Hill, since, a collar or gaiter protects the wearer against contact with whatever harmful elements may be present in the external environment towards the neck region (Hill [03] lines 11-12).
Regarding claim 15, modified Guy in view of Hill further discloses the breath protection device of claim 14 above;
further comprising a lower frame disposed on a lower portion of the transparent face covering shield (Figures 1 and 2 above; lower shield has the frame ‘23’ and Hill Figure 2; lower flange ‘36’ – lower frame);
Regarding claim 16, modified Guy in view of Hill further discloses the breath protection device of claim 15 above,
wherein the gaiter is detachable coupled to the lower frame through a snap fastener (Hill [019]; collar portion (gaiter) has fastening means of snap fasteners and [03] lines 1-3 and [014]; where you can disconnect the collar portion from the face shield’s lower flange frame).
Regarding claim 19, modified Guy in view of Hill further discloses the breath protection device of claim 14 above,
wherein the air filtration unit and the air circulation unit are disposed on a visor portion of the head cover (Figure 2 above; where the blower (air circulation unit) and filter (air filtration unit) are on the visor).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Guy (US 3822698 A) in view of Braun (US 4462399 A) and further in view of Jefferis (US 10420386 B1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Guy discloses the breath protection device of claim 1 above, but is silent to the transparent face covering shield comprising of a polycarbonate material.
Jefferis discloses the breath protection device,
wherein the transparent face covering shield comprises a polycarbonate material (Jefferis [071] lines 6-7; face shield may be constructed from polycarbonate).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the breath device of modified Guy to have polycarbonate as the material of the transparent face covering shield as taught by Jefferis since, polycarbonate is transparent, can be tinted to protect the wearer’s eyes from light damage and because it is a flexible material that can curve to accommodate different head sizes, thus making it a beneficial material for a transparent face covering shield (Jefferis [071] lines 6-10).
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Guy (US 3822698 A) in view of Braun (US 4462399 A) and further in view of Cook (US 9486026 B1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Guy discloses the breath protection device of claim 1 above, but fails to disclose wherein the air circulation unit comprises a USB fan.
Cook discloses the breath protection device,
wherein the air circulation unit comprises a USB fan (Cook [012]; USB fan is on the visor with a power bank for the fan (computer pack), air circulation unit is a fan).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the breath protection device of modified Guy to have a USB fan that is an air circulation unit as taught by Cook, since, a USB fan provides comfort, control and convenience of cooling, and because it is an inexpensive and lower power source type of fan (Cook [01] lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 13, modified Guy discloses the breath protection device of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising an external power bank configured to provide power to the air circulation unit.
Cook discloses the breath protection device,
further comprising an external power bank configured to provide power to the air circulation unit (Cook [012]; USB fan is on the visor with a power bank for the fan (computer pack), air circulation unit is a fan).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the breath protection device of modified Guy to have a power bank configured to provide power to the air circulation unit as taught by Cook, since, a power bank is an inexpensive source of power that is convenient (Cook [012] lines 1-2).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Guy (US 3822698 A) in view of Braun (US 4462399 A), further in view of Hill (US 3688314 A) and even further in view of Jefferis (US 9486026 B1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Guy in view of Hill discloses the breath protection device of claim 14 above, and is silent to wherein the transparent face covering shield is comprising of a polycarbonate material.
Jefferis discloses the breath protection device,
wherein the transparent face covering shield comprises a polycarbonate material (Jefferis [071] lines 6-7; face shield may be constructed from polycarbonate).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the breath device of modified Guy in view of hill to have polycarbonate as the material of the transparent face covering shield as taught by Jefferis since, polycarbonate is transparent, can be tinted to protect the wearer’s eyes from light damage and because it is a flexible material that can curve to accommodate different head sizes, thus making it a beneficial material for a transparent face covering shield (Jefferis [071] lines 6-10).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Guy (US 3822698 A) in view of Braun (US 4462399 A), further in view of Hill (US 3688314 A) and even further in view of Cook (US 9486026 B1).
Regarding claim 18, modified Guy in view of Hill discloses the breath protection device of claim 14 above, wherein the filtered air flows down within the breathing zone (Figures 1 and 2 above; where the air filter is positioned with the fan to direct air from the top of the head down the ‘breathing zone’), but fails to disclose wherein the air circulation unit comprises a USB fan.
Cook discloses the breath protection device,
wherein the air circulation unit comprises a USB fan (Cook [012]; USB fan is on the visor with a power bank for the fan (computer pack), air circulation unit is a fan).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the breath protection device of modified Guy in view of Hill to have a USB fan that is an air circulation unit as taught by Cook, since, a USB fan provides comfort, control and convenience of cooling, and because it is an inexpensive and lower power source type of fan (Cook [01] lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 20, modified Guy in view of Hill discloses the breath protecting device of claim 14 above, but fails to disclose further comprising an external power bank configured to provide power to the air circulation unit.
Cook discloses the breath protection device,
further comprising an external power bank configured to provide power to the air circulation unit (Cook [012]; USB fan is on the visor with a power bank for the fan (computer pack), air circulation unit is a fan).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the breath protection device of modified Guy in view of Hill to have a power bank configured to provide power to the air circulation unit as taught by Cook, since, a power bank is an inexpensive source of power that is convenient (Cook [012] lines 1-2).
Conclusion
The following prior art were considered but not used on a 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103 rejection:
Flores (US 5561862 A): rigid helmet having air blowing system.
Figueredo (US 5878742 A): air visor delivery system.
Quintal (US 7331064 B1): ventilated cap apparatus.
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.
/AISLINN M JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights