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 3/31/2023. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 3-4, and 6-13 were amended, claims 14-18 were cancelled, and claims 19-25 were added. Thus, claims 1-13 and 19-25 are presently pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: the reference numerals “302”, “303”, and “306” in fig. 21 and “404” in fig. 22 are missing from the specification.
Furthermore, the drawings are objected to because the drawings in figs. 9-10 contains gaps, which causes some drawing outlines to be disconnected from one another, which makes it unclear as to what the figures are attempting to depict. Furthermore, due to the disconnection, it is unclear if the disconnected parts are part of the same figures are is intended to be part of a different figure. If they are part of the same assembly, some form of connection are needed. See MPEP 37 C.F.R. 1.84(h)(1).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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 1 and the term “comprises” in line 4 of the abstract). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in the last line of the abstract, a period is missing. Furthermore, it is unclear if the term “FIGURE 21” at the end of the abstract is part of the abstract or not, suggest to delete “FIGURE 21”. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4 and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 5, the term “said neck seal extending inwardly from the headtop to the user’s neck” is suggested to be changed to --said neck seal configured to extend inwardly from the headtop to the user’s neck-- in order to make it clear that the intent is to not positively claim a part of the human body.
In claim 4, line 2, the term “hermitically” is suggested to be changed to --hermetically-- in order to fix typographical error. The term “hermitically” in claims 19 and 20 are objected to for the same reason.
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 “an air supply unit arranged to deliver air at its output” (claim 13, line 2, the limitation “unit” is a generic placeholder and the function is “air supply” and “to deliver air at its output”) and “an air interface component to receive air from the tube and to deliver said air within the hood” (claim 13, lines 6-7, the term “component” is a generic placeholder and the function is “air interface” and “to receive air from the tube and to deliver said air within the hood”).
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 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 1-13 and 19-25 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 “therefrom” (line 2) is unclear as to which structure is being referred to by the term therefrom, the hood or the headtop or another structure.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “said user’s entire head moves freely therein” (line 6) is unclear as to what structure is being referred to by the term “therein”, the headtop, the neck seal, the hood, or another structure.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “wherein the neck seal is fastened at a headtop and shoulder cape joint” (lines 1-2) is unclear as to what structure the neck seal is fastened to. Is the neck seal fastened to the hood, a structure of the hood, or a structure that is not part of the hood.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “at its output” (line 2) is unclear as to what structure is being referred to by the term “its”, the respirator system or the air supply unit.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “from within which” (line 4) is unclear as to what structure is being referred to by the term “which”.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “head can move freely” (lines 7) is unclear as to how to define the metes and bounds of the limitation, specifically, the term “can” can be defined as providing possibilities, therefore, it is unclear if the head can or cannot move freely.
Any remaining claims are rejected for their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chessari (2017/0100613).
PNG
media_image1.png
842
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Chessari discloses a hood (see 202 in figs. 5A-6B, paragraphs 0035-0046) suitable for use with a powered air purifying respirator (101 and 204, see fig. 5B, paragraph 00036), the hood comprising a headtop (208 and 210, see figs. 5A-6B, paragraphs 0041-0042) with a shoulder cape (212, figs. 5A-6B and paragraphs 0040 and 0043) extending therefrom, wherein the headtop is configured to encapsulate a user’s head and neck (see figs. 5A-6B), wherein said headtop comprises a transparent visor (210, figs. 5A-6B and paragraphs 0041-0042), and wherein the headtop comprises a resilient neck seal (see paragraphs 0037-0038 and 0041, Chessari discloses that the collar 214 when inflated would form a seal between the neck, furthermore, a body that is inflated to form a seal would be resilient), said neck seal extending inwardly from the headtop to the user’s neck, to create an enclosed volume such that in use, said user’s entire head moves freely therein (see figs. 5A-6B, as shown, there is a cavity within the headtop, which would allow the head to freely move therein, see the annotated-Chessari fig. 6A above).
Regarding claim 2, Chessari discloses that the headtop (208 and 210) is attached to the shoulder cape (212, figs. 5A-6B, see the annotated-Chessari fig. 6A above, paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 3, Chessari discloses that the neck seal is fastened at a headtop and shoulder cape joint (see the annotated-Chessari fig. 6A above, see paragraphs 0041, 0043 and 0045-0046, Chessari discloses that the shoulder cape 212 is coupled to the head enclosure 208 and that the head enclosure 208 comprises a neck seal 214, therefore, the neck seal is fastened at the headtop and shoulder cape joint, alternatively, neck seal/collar 214 is coupled to hose 101 at the headtop and shoulder cape joint, relatively, see paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 6, Chessari discloses that the headtop and shoulder cape joint and the neck seal form a cavity to allow positive airflow to surround the user’s entire head (see the annotated-Chessari fig. 6A above and paragraph 0041).
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chessari (2017/0100613) in view of Barbier (FR 3056383).
Regarding claim 4, Chessari discloses a visor and the headtop extend downwardly from the visor to the headtop and shoulder cape joint (see the annotated-Chessari fig. 6A above), but fails to disclose that the visor is hermetically sealed and framed within the headtop.
However, Barbier teaches a visor (5, figs. 1-5) that is hermetically sealed and framed within a headtop (headtop is formed by 2, 9 and 10, figs. 1-8, Barbier discloses in page 5 of the English translation that the envelope 2 can be a rigid material or a flexible textile piece. Furthermore, Barbier discloses in pages 6-8 how the window/visor 5 is being sealed and framed onto the headtop formed by 2, 9 and 10).
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 visor of Chessari to be a visor that is hermetically sealed and framed as taught by Barbier for the purpose providing an alternative visor construction that would prevent unwanted contaminants to enter the hood, thereby providing safety to the user (see page 7 of Barbier).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Chessari discloses a portion of the headtop extends downwardly from the visor to the headtop and shoulder cape joint (see the annotated-Chessari fig. 6A above, after the modification with Barbier, the visor position would be maintained such that a portion of the headtop extends downwardly from the visor to the headtop and shoulder cape joint).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chessari (2017/0100613) in view of Avery (2003/0192103) and Kim (KR 101292903).
Regarding claim 7, Chessari discloses that the headtop and shoulder cape joint and the neck seal are fastened (see the annotated-Chessari fig. 6A above, see paragraphs 0041, 0043 and 0045-0046, Chessari discloses that the shoulder cape 212 is coupled to the head enclosure 208 and that the head enclosure 208 comprises a neck seal 214, therefore, the neck seal is fastened at the headtop and shoulder cape joint), but fails to disclose that the headtop and the shoulder cape joint and the neck seal are sewn, adhesively bonded or mechanically fastened to create a hermetic seal.
However, Avery teaches a neck seal (54, 68, 64, 66, 62, and 60, figs. 1-4, paragraphs 0021 and 0024-0026) and a headtop and shoulder cape joint, wherein the neck seal and the headtop and the shoulder cape joint are sewn to create a seal (see paragraph 0025).
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 neck seal and the headtop and shoulder cape joint of Chessari to be sewn as taught by Avery for the purpose of providing a fastening means that would provide the predictable result of allowing a neck seal to be fastened to the headtop that would work equally well.
The modified Chessari fails to disclose that the sewing provides a hermetically seal interface.
However, Kim teaches a hermetic seal comprising the combination of using a sewing portion and a seam tape (see fig. 5 and paragraph 0054 of the English translation).
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 sewing of the modified Chessari to have the seam tape in order to provide a hermetic seal as taught by Kim for the purpose of providing protection to the user by preventing unwanted harmful contaminants from reaching the user (see paragraphs 0054 and 0075 of Kim).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chessari (2017/0100613) in view of Bacinska (2019/0104796).
Regarding claim 8, Chessari fails to disclose that the neck seal is reversibly attached to the headtop and shoulder cape joint, by a reversible fastener.
However, Bacinska teaches a PAPR (see paragraph 0032) comprising a neck seal (116 and 117, figs. 1-7, paragraphs 0037-0038, 0042 and 0046) and reversibly attached to a headtop (112, fig. 1) and shoulder cape (114, fig. 1, paragraph 0037) at a headtop and shoulder cape joint, wherein the shoulder cape is reversibly attached to the headtop (the joint is formed between 116, 112 and 114 at zipper 115, see figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 0033, 0037-0038, 0042 and 0046-0047).
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 neck seal, headtop and shoulder cape joint, and shoulder cape of Chessari to have the neck seal and the shoulder cape be reversibly attached to the headtop and shoulder cape joint as taught by Bacinska for the purpose of providing a modular design thereby providing ease of replace, repair and cleaning of parts (paragraphs 0037-0038, 0042 and 0046-0047 of Bacinska) and for the benefit of providing customizability by allowing the user to pick and choose what components are needed for the current environmental needs, thereby providing comfort and safety (see paragraph 0033 of Bacinska).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Chessari discloses that the reversible fastener is a zipper (see zipper 115 of Bacinska, figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 0037-0038, 0042 and 0046-0047 of Bacinska).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chessari (2017/0100613) in view of Sohm (FR 2561200).
Regarding claim 10, Chessari discloses a neck seal, but fails to disclose that the neck seal is an elasticated fabric.
However, Sohm teaches that a neck seal (7, fig. 2) is made from an elasticated fabric (see paragraphs 0005 and 0007 of the English translation).
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 neck seal of Chessari to be made from an elasticated fabric as taught by Sohm for the purpose of providing an alternative neck seal material that would be capable of being inflated to seal the user’s head from the external environment.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chessari (2017/0100613) in view of Frund (2003/0200966).
Regarding claim 11, Chessari discloses that the neck seal comprises an aperture having a radius (see the annotated-Chessari fig. 6A above), but fails to specifically disclose that the neck seal has an aperture with a radius which extends in the range of from 1 cm to 15 cm.
However, Frund teaches a neck seal (120, figs. 1-4B) comprising an aperture with a radius which extends in the range of from 1 cm to 15 cm, specifically a radius of 3.175 cm (see paragraph 0033, Frund discloses that the inner ring 120 has an inner diameter of approximate 2.5 inches, which is approximately 6.35 cm, which equates to a radius of 3.175 cm, Frund discloses that the inside diameter is preferably sized to fit the 5th to 95th percentile adult population).
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 aperture of Chessari to have a radius of 3.175 cm as taught by Frund for the purpose of providing a size that can accommodate 5th to 95th percentile of the adult population (see paragraph 0033 of Frund).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Chessari discloses that the aperture terminates in a raised collar, which in use extends up the user’s neck (see figs. 5A-6B and the annotated-Chessari fig. 6A above, as shown, the portion forming the aperture is a raised collar, which in use extends up the user’s neck).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chessari (2017/0100613) in view of Haynes (622,677).
Regarding claim 13, Chessari discloses a respirator system comprising: an air supply unit (204, fig. 5B, paragraph 0036) arranged to deliver air at its output (output is where 204 meets 101, see fig. 5B); a hood according to claim 1 and from within which the user’s breathes (see hood of Chessari in claim 1) and a tube to receive air from the air supply unit (see tube 101, figs. 5A-6B and paragraph 0036) and an air interface component to receive air from the tube and to deliver said air within the hood (the air interface component is the portion of the hood and neck seal that interface with 101 to receive air from the tube, see figs. 5A-6B), but fails to disclose a headgear comprising a cradle for interfacing with a user’s head.
However, Haynes teaches a headgear comprising a cradle for interfacing with a user’s head (see cradle formed by 12, 13 and 14, see fig. 2, page 1, lines 58-72).
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 hood of Chessari to have the headgear comprising a cradle as taught by Haynes for the purpose of protecting the user’s head from falling objects (see page 1, lines 58-72 of Haynes).
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Di (CN 111227415) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Di (CN 111227415) in view of Dakin (2,296,338).
Regarding claim 1, Di discloses a hood (1, 2 and 11, figs. 1-2, see paragraph 0022 of the English translation) suitable for use with a powered air purifying respirator (4 and 41, see paragraphs 0022-0023, Di discloses that 4 is a pressure air pump), the hood comprising a headtop (1 and 11, figs. 1-2) with a shoulder cape (2, figs. 1-2 and paragraph 0022) extending therefrom, wherein the headtop is configured to encapsulate a user’s head and neck (see figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0022), wherein said headtop comprises a transparent visor (see paragraphs 0008, 0013, and 0022, Di discloses that the head cover 1 is a transparent cover, therefore, the front face shield wall of 1 that covers the eyes, nose, and mouth would be a transparent visor), and wherein the headtop comprises a resilient neck seal (11, figs. 1-2, paragraphs 0008, 0022 and 0027, Di discloses that the neck constriction 11 is secured with an elastic band to seal the space and prevent contact with the outside air, furthermore, as shown, the neck constriction extends from an interior surface of an interior surface of 1 to an exterior surface of the neck of the user), said neck seal extending inwardly from the headtop to the user’s neck (see figs. 1-2), to create an enclosed volume such that in use, said user’s entire head moves freely therein (see figs. 1-2, the user’s head is spaced away from the interior surface of the head, therefore, would be capable of moving freely therein, see paragraph 0006, Di discloses “free head movement”).
However, if there is any doubt that the transparent face shield portion of Di can be considered as a visor.
Dakin teaches a headtop (entire hood/cap 20 shown in fig. 1 having frame member 31, 32 and 33) comprising a transparent visor (30 of 11, fig. 1, see page 1, col 2, line 41 to page 2, col 2, line 25).
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 headtop of Di to have the transparent visor as taught by Dakin for the purpose of providing a visor that would shield the user’s eyes from glaring overhead lights, thereby improving the user’s visibility (see page 1, col 2, lines 41-54 of Dakin).
Regarding claim 2, Di or the modified Di discloses that the headtop is attached to the shoulder cape (see figs. 1-2 and paragraph 0022 of Di, Di discloses a fabric shoulder cape 2 attached to a transparent head cover 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
1062
946
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Di or the modified Di discloses that the neck seal is fastened at a headtop and shoulder cape joint (see the annotated-Di dig. 2 above with reference to fig. 1, where the head cover 1 meet with the fabric cover 2 would be a headtop and shoulder cape joint, and as shown in fig. 1, the neck seal is fastened at a headtop and shoulder cape joint, see paragraphs 0022 and 0027, the cover fabric 2 is fixed and fused(fastened) to the headtop 1, therefore, the neck seal that is part of 1 is fastened to the shoulder cape, therefore, fastened “at a headtop and shoulder cape joint”).
Regarding claim 6, Di or the modified Di discloses that the headtop and shoulder cape joint and the neck seal form a cavity to allow positive airflow to surround the user’s entire head (see the annotated-Di fig. 1 above and paragraphs 0022 and 0023 of Di, the air supply pipe 41 is responsible for providing positive airflow and as shown, 1 of Di forms a cavity with the neck seal that would allow positive airflow to surround the user’s entire head).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di (CN 111227415) in view of Dakin (2,296,338) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Barbier (FR 3056383).
PNG
media_image3.png
588
836
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the modified Di discloses that the visor is framed within the headtop such that the headtop extends downwardly from the visor to the headtop and shoulder cape joint (after the modification with Dakin, the visor 30 is framed within the headtop (20 of Dakin) via frame 31, 32, and 33 of Dakin, see figs. 1-2 and see page 1, col 2, line 41 to page 2, col 2, line 25 of Dakin) (see figs. 1-2 of Di, after the modification with Dakin, the modified Di would have the visor positioned above the headtop and shoulder cape joint (see the annotated-Di fig. 1 for reference), therefore, the headtop would extends downwardly from lateral sides the visor to the head-top and shoulder joint, see the annotated-Di fig. 1 above for reference, a lateral side portion would be extending downward from the visor), but fails to disclose that the visor is hermetically sealed within the headtop.
However, Barbier teaches a visor (5, figs. 1-5) that is hermetically sealed and framed within a headtop (headtop is formed by 2, 9 and 10, figs. 1-8, Barbier discloses in page 5 of the English translation that the envelope 2 can be a rigid material or a flexible textile piece. Furthermore, Barbier discloses in pages 6-8 how the window/visor 5 is being sealed and framed onto the headtop formed by 2, 9 and 10).
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 visor of the modified Di to be hermetically sealed and framed as taught by Barbier for the purpose providing an alternative visor construction that would prevent unwanted contaminants to enter the hood, thereby providing safety to the user (see page 7 of Barbier).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Di discloses a portion of the headtop extends downwardly from the visor to the headtop and shoulder cape joint (see figs. 1-2 of Di, after the modification with Dakin, the modified Di would have the visor positioned above the headtop and shoulder cape joint (see the annotated-Di fig. 1 for reference), therefore, the headtop would extends downwardly from lateral sides the visor to the head-top and shoulder joint, see the annotated-Di fig. 1 above for reference, a lateral side portion would be extending downward from the visor, therefore, after the modification with Barbier, there are lateral side portions that would extend from the visor to the headtop and shoulder cape joint).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di (CN 111227415) alternatively in view of Dakin (2,296,338) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Moretti (4,236,514).
Regarding claim 7, Di or the modified Di discloses that the hood provides a tight seal (see paragraph 0006 of Di) and that the neck seal is fastened to the headtop and shoulder cape joint (see the annotated-Di fig. 1 above, the shoulder cape joint is interpreted as a portion having a joint between 2 and 1, and as shown are fastened to the neck seal 11 which is disclosed as a neck seal having an elastic band, see paragraphs 0022 and 0027, the cover fabric 2 is fixed and fused(fastened) to the headtop 1, therefore, the neck seal that is part of 1 is fastened to the shoulder cape, therefore, fastened to the headtop and shoulder cape joint), but fails to disclose that the headtop and the shoulder cape joint and the neck seal are sewn, adhesively bonded or mechanically fastened to create a hermetic seal.
However, Moretti teaches a head top (12, figs. 1-3) and as shoulder cape (14, fig. 2, col 2, lines 46 to col 3, line 5), a neck seal (30, 26, 24, 28, 34 and 38, see fig. 5, col 3, lines 6-66), the neck seal is mechanically fastened to create a hermetic seal with the headtop and the shoulder cape (see the connection using ring 16, 42 and 33, fig. 4, col 3, line 67 to col 4, line 52, Moretti discloses a mechanical fastener used to hermetically seal the neck seal with the head top and the shoulder cape, furthermore, Moretti discloses in col 3, lines 50-66 that an airtight seal is formed between the inner portion 30 and the outer portion 36 of member 20).
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 neck seal and the headtop and the shoulder cape joint of Di or the modified Di to be mechanically fastened to create a hermetic seal as taught by Moretti for the purpose of providing a seal between the neck seal and the headtop and shoulder cape that would be able to protect the user from unwanted foreign contaminants, thereby protecting the user (see col 3, lines 50-66 of Moretti).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di (CN 111227415) alternatively in view of Dakin (2,296,338) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Avery (2003/0192103) and Kim (KR 101292903).
Regarding claim 7, Di or the modified Di discloses that the hood provides a tight seal (see paragraph 0006 of Di) and that the neck seal is fastened to the headtop and shoulder cape joint (see the annotated-Di fig. 1 above, the shoulder cape joint is interpreted as a portion having a joint between 2 and 1, and as shown are fastened to the neck seal 11 which is disclosed as a neck seal having an elastic band, see paragraphs 0022 and 0027, the cover fabric 2 is fixed and fused(fastened) to the headtop 1, therefore, the neck seal that is part of 1 is fastened to the shoulder cape, therefore, fastened to the headtop and shoulder cape joint), but fails to disclose that the headtop and the shoulder cape joint and the neck seal are sewn, adhesively bonded or mechanically fastened to create a hermetic seal.
However, Avery teaches a neck seal (54, 68, 64, 66, 62, and 60, figs. 1-4, paragraphs 0021 and 0024-0026) and a headtop and shoulder cape joint, wherein the neck seal and the headtop and the shoulder cape joint are sewn to create a seal (see paragraph 0025).
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 neck seal and the headtop and shoulder cape joint of Di or the modified Di to be sewn as taught by Avery for the purpose of providing a fastening means that would provide the predictable result of allowing a neck seal to be fastened to the headtop that would work equally well.
The modified Di fails to disclose that the sewing providing a hermetically seal interface.
However, Kim teaches a hermetic seal comprising the combination of using a sewing portion and a seam tape (see fig. 5 and paragraph 0054 of the English translation).
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 sewing of the modified Di to have the seam tape in order to provide a hermetic seal as taught by Kim for the purpose of providing protection to the user by preventing unwanted harmful contaminants from reaching the user (see paragraphs 0054 and 0075 of Kim).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di (CN 111227415) alternatively in view of Dakin (2,296,338) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Bacinska (2019/0104796).
Regarding claim 8, Di or the modified Di fails to disclose that the neck seal is reversibly attached to the headtop and shoulder cape joint, by a reversible fastener.
However, Bacinska teaches a PAPR (see paragraph 0032) comprising a neck seal (116 and 117, figs. 1-7, paragraphs 0037-0038, 0042 and 0046) and reversibly attached to a headtop (112, fig. 1) and shoulder cape (114, fig. 1, paragraph 0037) at a headtop and shoulder cape joint, wherein the shoulder cape is reversibly attached to the headtop (the joint is formed between 116, 112 and 114 at zipper 115, see figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 0033, 0037-0038, 0042 and 0046-0047).
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 neck seal, headtop and shoulder cape joint, and shoulder cape of Di or the modified Di to have the neck seal and shoulder cape be reversibly attached to the headtop and shoulder cape joint as taught by Bacinska for the purpose of providing a modular design thereby providing ease of replace, repair and cleaning of parts (paragraphs 0037-0038, 0042 and 0046-0047 of Bacinska) and for the benefit of providing customizability by allowing the user to pick and choose what components are needed for the current environmental needs, thereby providing comfort and safety (see paragraph 0033 of Bacinska).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Di discloses that the reversible fastener is a zipper (see zipper 115 of Bacinska, figs. 1-7 and paragraphs 0037-0038, 0042 and 0046-0047 of Bacinska).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di (CN 111227415) alternatively in view of Dakin (2,296,338) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Swann (5,394,867).
Regarding claim 10, Di or the modified Di discloses that the neck seal comprises an elasticated band (paragraphs 0011 and 0027), but fails to specifically disclose that the elasticated band is an elasticated fabric.
However, Swann teaches an elasticated fabric for a neck seal (see the neck band 46 made of an elastic fabric, see fig. 2 and col 10, lines 50-63).
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 elasticated band of Di or the modified Di to be an elasticated fabric as taught by Swann for the purpose of providing an alternative material that would provide the predictable result of allowing the neck seal to seal against the neck of the user.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di (CN 111227415) alternatively in view of Dakin (2,296,338) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frund (2003/0200966).
Regarding claim 11, Di or the modified Di discloses that the neck seal comprises an elasticated band (paragraphs 0011 and 0027) and comprises an aperture having a radius (see figs. 1-2, the neck seal 11 of Di comprises an aperture having a particular radius in order to accommodate a user’s neck), but fails to specifically disclose that the neck seal has an aperture with a radius which extends in the range of from 1 cm to 15 cm.
However, Frund teaches a neck seal (120, figs. 1-4B) comprising an aperture with a radius which extends in the range of from 1 cm to 15 cm, specifically 3.175 cm (see paragraph 0033, Frund discloses that the inner ring 120 has an inner diameter of approximate 2.5 inches, which is approximately 6.35 cm, which equates to a radius of 3.175 cm, Frund discloses that the inside diameter is preferably sized to fit the 5th to 95th percentile adult population).
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 aperture of Di or the modified Di to have a radius of 3.175 cm as taught by Frund for the purpose of providing a size that can accommodate 5th to 95th percentile of the adult population (see paragraph 0033 of Frund).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di (CN 111227415) in view of Frund (2003/0200966) and alternatively in view of Dakin (2,296,338) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Grove (7,743,433).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Di fails to specifically disclose that the aperture terminates in a raised collar, which in use extends up the user’s neck.
PNG
media_image4.png
416
741
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Grove teaches a neck seal (see 23, 20, 11 in fig. 1) comprising an aperture that terminates in a raised collar, which in use extends up the user’s neck (see the raised collar formed by 11, see col 2, line 48 to col 3, line 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the neck seal of the modified Di to be the neck seal comprising a raised collar as taught by Grove for the purpose of providing a neck seal construction that would provide a reliable seal to protect the user without substantial constriction of the neck (see col 2, lines 3-30 and col 2, line 48 to col 3, line 26 of Grove).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di (CN 111227415) alternatively in view of Dakin (2,296,338) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Naysmith (4,127,130).
Regarding claim 13, Di or the modified Di discloses a respirator system comprising: an air supply unit (4 of Di, see fig. 2 and paragraphs 0022-0023 of Di) arranged to deliver air at its output (output is where 4 meets 41 of Di, see fig. 2 of Di); a hood according to claim 1 and from within which the user’s breathes (see hood formed by 1 and 2 of Di, figs. 1-2 of Di) and a tube to receive air from the air supply unit (see tube 41 in fig. 2 and paragraphs 0022-0023 and 0027 of Di), and an interface component to receive air from the tube and to deliver said air within the hood (the interface component is a portion of the hood that receive the tube or interface with the tube in order to move the air to the other portion of the hood, see figs. 1-2), but fails to disclose a headgear comprising a cradle for interfacing with a user’s head.
However, Naysmith teaches a hood (20, fig. 1) for accommodating a headgear (14 and 12 and tube 18 holder attached to 12 and 14, fig. 1) having a cradle (cradle forming by portion of 12 and 14 that holds the head of the user, see fig. 1) for interfacing with a user’s head, a tube (tube can be tube that is connected to a bottom of 22 or can be 18, see fig. 1, col 2, line 59 to col 3, line 6) to receive air from an air supply unit (see col 2, lines 59-68, air under pressure is being provided), and an air interface component to receive air from the tube and to deliver said air within the hood (air interface component can be 22 or can be 16, if interface component is 16 then the tube is 18, if interface component is 22 then the tube is the tube that is connected to 22, see col 2, line 59 to col 3, line 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hood of Di or the modified Di to have the headgear and interface component as taught by Naysmith for the purpose of reducing noise and provide air at comfortable and muffled air flow to the user’s head (see col 1, lines 6-13 and col 2, line 59 to col 3, line 26 of Naysmith).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di (CN 111227415) alternatively in view of Dakin (2,296,338) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haynes (622,677).
Regarding claim 13, Di discloses a respirator system comprising: an air supply unit (4 of Di, see fig. 2 and paragraphs 0022-0023 of Di) arranged to deliver air at its output (output is where 4 meets 41 of Di, see fig. 2 of Di); a hood according to claim 1 and from within which the user’s breathes (see hood formed by 1 and 2 of Di, figs. 1-2 of Di) and a tube to receive air from the air supply unit (see tube 41 in fig. 2 and paragraphs 0022-0023 and 0027 of Di), and an interface component to receive air from the tube and to deliver said air within the hood (the interface component is a portion of the hood that receive the tube or interface with the tube in order to move the air to the other portion of the hood, see figs. 1-2), but fails to disclose a headgear comprising a cradle for interfacing with a user’s head.
However, Haynes teaches a headgear comprising a cradle for interfacing with a user’s head (see cradle formed by 12, 13 and 14, see fig. 2, page 1, lines 58-72).
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 hood of Di or the modified Di to have the headgear comprising a cradle as taught by Haynes for the purpose of protecting the user’s head from falling objects (see page 1, lines 58-72 of Haynes).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di (CN 111227415) alternatively in view of Dakin (2,296,338) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jascomb (2020/0060375).
Regarding claim 13, Di discloses a respirator system comprising: an air supply unit (4 of Di, see fig. 2 and paragraphs 0022-0023 of Di) arranged to deliver air at its output (output is where 4 meets 41 of Di, see fig. 2 of Di); a hood according to claim 1 and from within which the user’s breathes (see hood formed by 1 and 2 of Di, figs. 1-2 of Di) and a tube to receive air from the air supply unit (see tube 41 in fig. 2 and paragraphs 0022-0023 and 0027 of Di), and an interface component to receive air from the tube and to deliver said air within the hood (the interface component is a portion of the hood that receive the tube or interface with the tube in order to move the air to the other portion of the hood, see figs. 1-2), but fails to disclose a headgear comprising a cradle for interfacing with a user’s head.
However, Jascomb teaches a hood (178, figs. 3-4 and paragraph 0058) for accommodating a headgear (190, fig. 1) having a cradle (220, 221, 242 and 188, fig. 1) for interfacing with a user’s head (see figs. 1-17D and paragraphs 0056-0062 a d 0070-0071), a tube (184, fig. 1, paragraph 0059) to receive air from an air supply unit (186, fig. 6, paragraphs 0060-0061), and an air interface component to receive air from the tube and to deliver said air within the hood (the air interface component is 228, see fig. 1, paragraphs 0059 and 0062).
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 hood of Di or the modified Di to have the headgear as taught by Jascomb for the purpose of providing an air distribution system that would improve the distribution and circulation of air around sensitive part of the face and around the head and neck region and for the purpose of providing a light source mount that would allow the user to see the work area in a more visible manner (see paragraphs 0059-0060 of Jascomb).
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di (CN 111227415) in view of Barbier (FR 3056383).
Regarding claim 19, Di discloses a hood (1, 2 and 11, figs. 1-2, see paragraph 0022 of the English translation) suitable for use with a powered air purifying respirator (4 and 41, see paragraphs 0022-0023, Di discloses that 4 is a pressure air pump), the hood comprising a headtop (1 and 11, figs. 1-2), a transparent visor (see paragraphs 0008, 0013, and 0022, Di discloses that the head cover 1 is a transparent cover, therefore, the front face shield wall of 1 that covers the eyes, nose, and mouth would be a transparent visor), a resilient neck seal (11, figs. 1-2, paragraphs 0008, 0022 and 0027, Di discloses that the neck constriction 11 is secured with an elastic band to seal the space and prevent contact with the outside air, furthermore, as shown, the neck constriction extends from an interior surface of an interior surface of 1 to an exterior surface of the neck of the user) extending inwardly from a base of the headtop (see the annotated-Di fig. 1 above, the base of the headtop is the bottom portion of the headtop that comprises the neck seal and is adjacent to the headtop and shoulder cape joint), such that in use, the neck seal engaged around a user’s neck to create an enclosed volume in which a user’s head can move freely (see figs. 1-2, the user’s head is spaced away from the interior surface of the head, therefore, would be capable of moving freely therein, see paragraph 0006, Di discloses