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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed January 19, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) ( i ) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, all KR and JP foreign patent documents listed within the information disclosure statement filed January 19, 2023 do not have English translations. See MPEP 609.04(a), Section III for details on requirements for non-English language information. Drawings The drawings are objected to because: Reference characters “256”, “262A”, “262B”, “264A”, “264B”, “22” are not found in the specification (Figs 1, 9, 10, 11). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim s 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: A comma should be added after “wearer” to correct the grammatical error (Claim 1, Line 5). The phrase “when worn by the wearer” should have commas before and after the phrase to correct the grammatical error (Claim 1, Line 8). The phrase “outer surface” should be changed to –an outer surface—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 1, Line 16). The phrase “between” should be changed to –among—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 1, Line 21). The phrase “hook” should be changed to –hooks—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 1, Line 32). The phrase “the first shoulder” should be changed to –wherein the first shoulder—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 2, Line 1). The phrase “comprises” should be changed to –that comprises—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 3, Line 3). The phrase “the switch” should be changed to –wherein the switch—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 4, Line 1). The phrase “positions” should be changed to –is configured to position — to avoid requiring parts of the wearer (Claim 5, Line 4). The phrase “air flow stream” should be changed to –an air flow stream—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 5, Line 4). The phrase “the removable” should be changed to –wherein the removable—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 6, Line 1). The comma after “the filter material” should be removed to correct the grammatical error (Claim 6, Line 3). The phrase “length” should be changed to –wherein a length—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 7, Line 1). The phrase “the face shield” should be changed to –wherein the face shield—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 8, Line 1). The phrase “the temple rail” should be changed to –wherein the temple rail—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 9, Line 1). The phrase “the flat surface portion is in contact” should be changed to – the flat surface portion is configured to be in contact— to avoid requiring parts of the wearer (Claim 9, Lines 2-3). A comma should be added after “wearer” to correct the grammatical error (Claim 10, Line 5). A comma should be added after “wearer” to correct the grammatical error (Claim 10, Line 8). The phrase “between” should be changed to –among—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 10, Line 22). The phrase “hook” should be changed to –hooks,—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 10, Line 33). The phrase “separate” should be changed to –wherein separate—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 11, Line 1). The phrase “ either” should be changed to –wherein either—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 12, Line 1). The phrase “more than one of the filter port is” should be changed to –more than one of the filter ports are—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 12, Line 3). The phrase “more than one of the removable filter” should be changed to –more than one of the removable filters—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 12, Line 4). The phrase “filter port” should be changed to –filter ports—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 12, Line 6). The phrase “length” should be changed to –wherein a length—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 13, Line 1). The phrase “the temple rail” should be changed to –wherein the temple rail—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 14, Line 1). The phrase “the flat surface portion is in contact” should be changed to – the flat surface portion is configured to be in contact— to avoid requiring parts of the wearer (Claim 14, Lines 2-3). The phrase “positions” should be changed to –is configured to position— to avoid requiring parts of the wearer (Claim 15, Line 4). The phrase “air flow stream” should be changed to –an air flow stream—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 15, Line 4). The phrase “when worn by the wearer” should be changed to –wherein, when worn by the wearer,-- to correct the grammatical error (Claim 16, Lines 5-6). The phrase “when worn by the wearer” should have commas before and after the phrase to correct the grammatical error (Claim 16, Line 8). The phrase “initiating airflow through an airflow channel of a purified filtered air” should be changed to –initiating an airflow of a purified filtered air through an airflow channel—for consistency (Claim 16, Line 17). The phrase “between” should be changed to –among—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 16, Line 27). The phrase “ingresses” should be changed to – ingressing —to correct the grammatical error (Claim 16, Line 29). The phrase “a purified” should be changed to –the purified—for consistency (Claim 16, Line 30). The phrase “transports” should be changed to –transporting—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 16, Line 30). The phrase “egresses” should be changed to –egressing—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 16, Line 32). The phrase “ingresses” should be changed to – ingressing —to correct the grammatical error (Claim 16, Line 34). The phrase “transports” should be changed to –transporting—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 16, Line 35). The phrase “egresses” should be changed to –egressing—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 16, Line 38). The phrase “hook” should be changed to –hooks,—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 16, Line 45). The phrase “wearer allowing” should be changed to –wearer, allowing—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 16, Line 47). The phrase “a respirator” should be changed to –the respirator—for consistency (Claim 17, Line 1). The phrase “length” should be changed to –a length—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 17, Line 3). The phrase “a respirator” should be changed to –the respirator—for consistency (Claim 18, Line 1). The phrase “a respirator” should be changed to –the respirator—for consistency (Claim 19, Line 1). The phrase “supply” should be changed to –a supply—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 19, Line 4). The phrase “a respirator” should be changed to –the respirator—for consistency (Claim 20, Line 1). The phrase “length” should be changed to –a length—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 20, Line 3). Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim s 16-20 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. Claim 16 discusses a method that describes the structures of two different embodiments and provides options “in one of the following ways”. The first portion of the claim describes the position of the air handler, either being behind the neck of the wearer or being integrated into one of the shoulder rails (Lines 10-16). The second portion of the claim describes the formation of the airflow channel, either transporting the air through the air handler, neck conduit, temple rail, and temple vent or transporting the air through the air handler, shoulder rail , neck conduit, temple rail, and temple vent (Lines 29-33). This statement fails to comply with the written description requirement since there is insufficient support for the embodiment of the air handler being behind the neck of the wearer to be capable of transporting the air through the shoulder rail. It appears the applicant was trying to say that the claim involves two embodiments and that the embodiment of the air handler being behind the neck of the wearer would only be paired up with the formation of the airflow channel that describes transporting the air through the air handler, neck conduit, temple rail, and temple vent. However, because the layout of the claim provides two options at each of the two portions of the claim, it is possible that there are four different embodiments that can be made from these combinations of options. Additionally, the pairing of options would not make sense due to the structural limitations of the claimed embodiment. For example, for the embodiment of the air handler being behind the neck of the wearer, the airflow channel would not exist at the shoulder rail and thus, no air would be traveling through the shoulder rail. This is clearly shown in the instant drawings Figs 4-5 which does not show any air going through the shoulder rails. Therefore, there sufficient doubt that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as there are only two possible combinations, wherein the first option of the first portion of the claim pairs only with the first option of the second portion of the claim and the second option of the first portion of the claim pairs only with the second option of the second portion of the claim. In other words, the claim is interpreted to only reflect the two embodiments, one depicted in Figs 1-7 and one depicted in Figs 8-12. Claims 17-20 are rejected for being dependent on rejected Claim 16. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 11-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 11 states “ separate one of the air handler is integrated” (Lines 1-2). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear how many air handlers are involved and whether or not the air handler is an integrated or separate component. It appears the applicant was trying to say there are two air handlers, a first air handler is integrated with a first shoulder rail end and a second air handler is integrated with a second shoulder rail end. However, it is possible that the air handlers mentioned in Claim 11 are completely different from the air handler of Claim 10 . Additionally, Claim 11 requires two air handlers when Claim 10 only requires one air handler, causing confusion regarding the number of air handlers involved. Furthermore, the use of “separate one” implies the air handler is a separate, and not integrated, component. Therefore, the number of air handlers involved and whether or not they’re integrated cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as Claim 11 requires at least two air handlers, a first air handler is integrated with a first shoulder rail end and a second air handler is integrated with a second shoulder rail end. Claim 12 states “more than one of the filter port” (Line 3). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if this is the same filter port mentioned in Claim 10 and how many filter ports are required. It appears the applicant was trying to say it’s the same filter port as in Claim 10 and that Claim 12 requires at least two filter ports for each air handler. However, it is possible these filter ports of Claim 12 are completely distinct and different from the filter port in Claim 10. Therefore, the number of filter ports involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as it’s the same filter port as in Claim 10 and that Claim 12 requires at least two filter ports for each air handler. Claim 12 states “more than one of the removable filter” (Line 3). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if this is the same removable filter mentioned in Claim 10 and how many removable filters are required. It appears the applicant was trying to say it’s the same removable filter as in Claim 10 and that Claim 12 requires at least two removable filters for each filter port (since there are at least two filter ports involved, the minimum number of removable filters required would be four). However, it is possible these removable filters of Claim 12 are completely distinct and different from the removable filter in Claim 10. Therefore, the number of removable filters involved cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as it’s the same removable filter as in Claim 10 and that Claim 12 requires at least two removable filters for each filter port (since there are at least two filter ports involved, the minimum number of removable filters required would be interpreted as four). Claim 16 discusses a method that describes the structures of two different embodiments and provides options “in one of the following ways”. The first portion of the claim describes the position of the air handler, either being behind the neck of the wearer or being integrated into one of the shoulder rails (Lines 10-16). The second portion of the claim describes the formation of the airflow channel, either transporting the air through the air handler, neck conduit, temple rail, and temple vent or transporting the air through the air handler, shoulder rail , neck conduit, temple rail, and temple vent (Lines 29-33). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear how the embodiment of the air handler being behind the neck of the wearer would be capable of transporting the air through the shoulder rail. It appears the applicant was trying to say that the claim involves two embodiments and that the embodiment of the air handler being behind the neck of the wearer would only be paired up with the formation of the airflow channel that describes transporting the air through the air handler, neck conduit, temple rail, and temple vent. However, because the layout of the claim provides two options at each of the two portions of the claim, it is possible that there are four different embodiments that can be made from these combinations of options. Additionally, the pairing of options would not make sense due to the structural limitations of the claimed embodiment. For example, for the embodiment of the air handler being behind the neck of the wearer, the airflow channel would not exist at the shoulder rail and thus, no air would be traveling through the shoulder rail. This is clearly shown in the instant drawings Figs 4-5 which does not show any air going through the shoulder rails . Therefore, the number of embodiments involved in the claim cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as there are only two possible combinations, wherein the first option of the first portion of the claim pairs only with the first option of the second portion of the claim and the second option of the first portion of the claim pairs only with the second option of the second portion of the claim. In other words, the claim is interpreted to only reflect the two embodiments, one depicted in Figs 1-7 and one depicted in Figs 8-12. Claims 17-20 are rejected for being dependent on rejected Claim 16. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1 discusses a neck-mount powered respirator with various components of great detail, including a temple rail that is hollow, curvilinear, and u-shaped and has temple vents at its ends. Claim 1 also discusses the air handler is positioned around the back of the head when worn by the wearer. Claim 10 discusses a similar apparatus to Claim 1 with the air handler integrated into a shoulder rail. Claim 16 discusses a method of wearing the apparatuses discussed in Claim 1 and Claim 10. Claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 contain allowable subject matter due to their dependencies on Claims 1, 10, and 16. Pavalarajan et al. (US 2018 / 0084848 A1) discusses a surgical helmet. Though Pavalarajan discusses various embodiments, none of the embodiments meet the claimed invention of Claims 1, 10, and 16. The prior art device does not have the temple rail claimed by the instant invention. The temple rail of the instant invention is u-shaped and has temple vents at its ends as depicted in Fig 4. Pavalarajan is used for surgery and does not have the same kind of filters that would be expected in powered respirators. Like Pavalarajan , other prior art do not have this temple rail design that the instant invention is claiming. The prior art only have a continuous circular design that goes around the top of the user’s head. Additionally, other prior art do not have the shoulder rail in combination with the temple rail. The prior art only shows the shoulder rail alone or in combination with a mask like the prior art Chang et al. ( English Machine Translation of KR-20210145046-A provided by PE2E ) . Furthermore, the instant claims describe the apparatus in great detail in which the number of modifications required to reach the claimed invention would be drastic and non-obvious. Therefore, the prior art does not disclose Claims 1, 10, and 16. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for art cited of interest including: US-20110289954-A1 discusses a shoulder cooling assembly that blows air to the neck. US-20070163586-A1 discusses a device with air curtains placed at various positions around the head. US-20100108067-A1 discusses a respirator with air conduits traveling above and on the sides of the user’s head. English Machine Translation of KR-102035977-B1 provided by PE2E discusses a mask device with supports that attach to a hat. English Machine Translation of KR-20170127845-A provided by PE2E discusses a goggle type mask structure with air conduits along the shoulder and around the user’s head and face. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRIAN THAI-BINH KHONG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1857 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday to Thursday 9:00 am-6:00 pm . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kendra Carter can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-9034 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /BRIAN T KHONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785 /KENDRA D CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785