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 in response to the amendment filed on 03/10/2026. Per the amendment, claims 1-8 and 10 are as currently amended, and claim 9 is cancelled. As such, claims 1-8 and 10 are pending in the instant application.
All objections and rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) made in the Office Action mailed on 01/13/2026 are withdrawn in light of the amendments. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is no longer invoked in light of the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 16: “the base of the manifold” should read “the base of the first manifold” for clarity and continuity.
Claim 1, lines 22-25: “wherein said first manifold (3) comprises a plurality of holes (9) adapted to feed the air (A) purified by the filter (7) into a space (S) located between the air blade (L) and the face of the user (U), through said holes (9)” should read “wherein said first manifold (3) comprises a plurality of holes (9) adapted to feed the air (A) purified by the filter (7) into a space (S) located between the air blade (L) and the face of the user (U)” to improve clarity as restating “through said holes (9)” is redundant.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al. (US 20090055987 A1), hereinafter Becker, in view of Christensen (DE 835635 C).
Regarding claim 1, Becker discloses a face shield (14 and 16; Fig. 1) comprising:
a structure for application and fastening to the head of a user (14; Fig. 1);
at least one fan (fan within blower housing 46; [0027]), associated with the structure for application and fastening (fan is contained within air flow system 16 with is connected to headgear 14; Fig. 1);
a first manifold (24; Figs. 1-2), in fluid connection with the at least one fan (airflow through air flow system 16 and manifold 24 is provided by the fan; [0027] and [0028]), with an indicatively arched shape (see Figs. 1 and 3), the first manifold (24) comprising a base having a length (24 has a base with a length, see Annotated Fig. 8 below);
operating controls (on/off switch 44; Fig. 3) and a battery operated electrical power supply (battery enclosure 40 is the power supply; [0027]),
said first manifold (24) comprises a slot (70; Fig. 8) positioned at the base (70 positioned along bottom surface of 24, see Fig. 8), the slot running along a majority of the length of the base of the manifold (see Fig. 8, where 70 runs along majority of base of 24); and
a filter (72; Fig. 9) arranged to purify air ([0039], lines 8-11), the filter associated with the at least one fan (72 associated with fan within blower housing 46; Fig. 9),
wherein said first manifold (24) comprises a plurality of holes (50; Fig. 9) adapted to feed the air (A) purified by the filter (7) into a space (S) located between an air blade and the face of the user (50; [0038], lines 5-6), through said holes (50).
Becker fails to explicitly disclose wherein said slot of the first manifold coacts with air from said at least one fan to create an air blade exiting from said slot around a face of the user.
However, Christensen teaches an analogous face shield device (Figs. 1 and 3) with a manifold (chamber 16 formed by plates 7 and 10; Fig. 1) with a slot (13; Fig. 1) formed by edges of two plates of the manifold (13 formed by edge 8 of plate 7 and edge 12 of plate 10, see Fig. 1, see [0006] of provided translation) extending for a majority of a length of a base of the manifold (see Fig. 2), where air from a compressor or pump system is delivered to the manifold (16; Fig. 1; [0007], see provided translation) and flows through the slot (Fig. 2; [0007], see provided translation) to form an air jet screen (18; Figs. 1 and 3; [0007], see provided translation) around a user’s face (Fig. 3). Additionally, in an alternate embodiment of Christensen (Figs. 4-8), Christensen teaches a plurality of nozzles (24, 25, 26, and 27; Fig. 5) to provide clean air to the user to breathe ([0012]-[0013], see provided translation), where the air delivered to the user from the plurality of nozzles is provided to a space between the user’s face and the air jet screen (see Figs. 3 and 8, where nozzle 15 has the same function as nozzles 24, 25, 26, and 27, and where 18 is equivalent to the air jet screen output by 21 in Fig. 8).
Therefore, 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 slot and deflector taught by Becker with the slot and edges taught by Christensen as described above, such that said first manifold (24) comprises a slot (Christensen 13; Christensen Fig. 1) positioned at the base (Christensen 13 positioned along bottom surface of 24, see Fig. 8 where Becker 70 is replaced with Christensen 13; Christensen Fig. 2), the slot running along a majority of the length of the base of the manifold (Christensen 13 runs along majority of base of 24; Fig. 8, where Becker 70 is replaced with Christensen 13), wherein said slot of the first manifold (Christensen 13) coacts with air from said at least one fan to create an air blade exiting from said slot around a face of the user (air from fan within blower housing 46 supplied to 24 and exits 24 through Christensen 13, where Christensen 8 and Christensen 12 guide the air through Christensen 13 and over the user’s face; Christensen Figs. 1 and 3; Christensen [0006]-[0007], see provided translation; and
a filter (72; Fig. 9) arranged to purify air ([0039], lines 8-11), the filter associated with the at least one fan (72 associated with fan within blower housing 46; Fig. 9),
wherein said first manifold (24) comprises a plurality of holes (50; Fig. 9) adapted to feed the air purified by the filter into a space located between the air blade and the face of the user (50 is arranged between face of user and Christensen 13, see Fig. 8 where Becker 70 is Christensen 13, and Becker 66 is replaced with Christensen 8 and Christensen 12, hence flow from Becker 50 will be provided between the air blade from Christensen 13 and the user’s face), through said holes (50) to increase the protection of the user by providing an uninterrupted and undivided curtain of airflow through the slot on the base of the manifold.
PNG
media_image1.png
439
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8
Regarding claim 10, Becker as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 1, further comprising a second manifold (vent 26; Figs. 1-2) in fluid connection with said at least one fan (air from fan within blower housing 46 flow through air flow system 16 to vent 26; Figs. 1-2; [0028]), said second manifold comprising said plurality of holes (holes 50 are located on vent 26; Fig. 7-9).
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (US 20090055987 A1) in view of Christensen (DE 835635 C), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lage Alvarez (ES 2778847 A1), hereinafter Alvarez
Regarding claim 2, Becker as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 1, but fails to teach the face shield wherein the at least one fan comprises a pair of fans, arranged on the opposite sides of the structure and of said first manifold.
However, Alvarez teaches an analogous air curtain device with a pair of fans (6, 13; Fig. 1) arranged on opposite sides of the device (see Fig. 1, where fan 6 is located above the user’s right ear and fan 13 is located above the user’s left ear).
Therefore, 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 structure taught by Becker with the pair of fans taught by Alvarez as both teach fans being located within housing, and to provide the a mixture flow via one fan of the pair of fans to improve protection of the user against hazardous materials and contaminants in the surrounding environment ([0060], see provided translation).
Regarding claim 4, Becker as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 2, wherein said first manifold comprises a wall (Christensen 12) that rises from the bottom of the first manifold in front of the slot (Christensen 12 rises from bottom of Becker 24 in front of Christensen 13; Christensen Fig. 1, where Christensen 10 is equivalent to the bottom surface of Becker 24) so as to form a pre-chamber for distribution of the air insufflated by the pair of fans (see Christensen Fig. 3, where pair of fans taught by Alvarez provide air to the interior of space of the manifold 24).
Regarding claim 5, Becker as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 4, wherein said wall alternatively has a constant height (Christensen 12 has constant height from the left side of manifold 24 to the right side of manifold 24; Christensen Figs. 1-2; Christensen [0006], see provided translation), smaller than that of the first manifold (Christensen 12 has a height smaller than the height of the manifold 24; Christensen Fig. 1), or uniformly variable height, from the pair of fans toward a central portion of the first manifold (Christensen 12 forms between the fans taught by Alvarez, see claim 2 above).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (US 20090055987 A1) in view of Christensen (DE 835635 C) in view of Alvarez (ES 2778847 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Pavalarajan et al. (EP 2853169 A1), hereinafter Pavalarajan.
Regarding claim 3, Becker as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 2, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein said first manifold (24; Figs. 1-2) comprises a partition that divides the first manifold into two independent half-manifolds, each in fluid connection with a respective one fan of the pair of fans.
However, Pavalarajan teaches an analogous air curtain device with a chin bar (20; Fig. 2) that provides a flow of air over a user’s face and includes a partition to divide the chin bar (20; Fig. 2) into two halves (Fig. 2; col. 10, line 46 through col. 11, line 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Becker, as modified in claim 2 above, with the partition taught by Pavalarajan, such that Becker as modified teaches wherein said first manifold (24; Figs. 1-2) comprises a partition (partition taught by Pavalarajan, see Pavalarajan Fig. 2 and Pavalarajan col. 10, line 46 through col. 11, line 1) that divides the first manifold into two independent half-manifolds (partition taught by Pavalarajan divides manifold 24 taught by Becker into two halves, a left half and a right half), each in fluid connection with a respective one fan of the pair of fans (the left half of manifold 24 is in fluid connection with the fan/blower housing on the left side of the device, and the right half of manifold 24 is in fluid connection with the fan/blower housing on the right side of the device) to improve structural integrity at the weakest point in the arched shape of the first manifold.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker (US 20090055987 A1) in view of Christensen (DE 835635 C) in view of Alvarez (ES 2778847 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Brose & Gehrung (US 10806953 B2), hereinafter Brose.
Regarding claim 6, Becker as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 2, but is silent to wherein the first manifold comprises a plurality of distribution fins adapted to drive a flow of the air coming from the pair of fans toward the slot.
However, Brose teaches an air outflow body (Fig. 13) including a plurality of air guides (41; Fig. 13) on an outflow surface (4; Fig. 13), where air flows out of the air outflow body (Fig. 13) out of the outflow surface (4; Fig. 13). Brose further teaches the plurality of air guides extends across the air outflow body (col. 5, lines 36-37; Fig. 13) and extend from the outflow surface (4; Fig. 13) 10% to 20% of the height of the air outflow body (Fig. 13; col. 5, lines 39-41), where the plurality of air guides divide the air stream (col. 5, lines 58-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the manifold (24; Figs. 1-2) taught by Becker, as modified in claim 2 above, with the plurality of air guides taught by Brose such that the first manifold (24; Figs. 1-2) comprises a plurality of distribution fins (Brose 41; Brose Fig. 13) adapted to drive a flow of the air coming from the pair of fans toward the slot (air from pair of fans taught be Alvarez moves toward and out of slot 70, where the plurality of air guides Brose 41 divide the air flow from slot 70; Brose col. 5, lines 58-59) to provide a mild flow of air fanned over the user’s face to improve user comfort during use (Brose col. 5, lines 49-52).
Regarding claim 7, Becker as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 6, wherein said distribution fins (Brose 41; Brose Fig. 13) extend for the whole of a cross section of the first manifold, to beyond the slot (see Brose Fig. 13; Brose col. 5, lines 36-37).
Regarding claim 8, Becker as modified teaches the invention as set forth in claim 6, wherein said distribution fins (Brose 41; Brose Fig. 13) rise from the bottom of the first manifold (Brose 41 extend from the bottom surface of manifold 24, hence it can be interpreted Brose 41 rises in a directed away from manifold 24; Brose Fig. 13), alternatively, for a constant height (Brose Fig. 13), smaller than that of the first manifold (Brose col. 5, lines 39-41), or for a uniformly variable height, from the pair of fans toward a central portion of the first manifold (Brose Fig. 13; Brose col. 5, lines 36-37).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
On pages 8-11 of the Remarks (filed on 03/10/2026), Applicant argues Becker fails to disclose, teach, or render obvious the slot of the first manifold coacting with air from at least one fan to create an air blade exiting from said slot around a face of the user. The Examiner notes the standard dictionary definition, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is “to act or work together”. Hence, the recitation of “wherein said slot of the first manifold coacts with air from said at least one fan to create an air blade” (see claim 1) can be interpreted as – wherein said slot of the first manifold works together with air from said at least one fan to create an air blade. Becker discloses that slot 70 receives deflector 66, where deflector 66 directs the air exiting from bottom tubes 50 downward and across a user’s face (see Becker [0038]). As such, slot 70 does work together with the air from the at least one fan to create an air blade, as the air blade is created via air from bottom tubes being deflected off of deflector 66, which is held by slot 70. Additionally, slot 70 being sealed off from the manifold (Becker [0038]) prevents air output by bottom tubes 50 from reentering the manifold, and redirects all air output from bottom tubes 50 to the deflector and over a user’s face. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Becker does disclose slot 70 coacting with the air provided by the at least one fan to create an air blade, and may be considered to exit from slot 70, as the air is output by bottom tubes 50 and contacts sealed slot 70 and deflector 66 to be directed over the user’s face.
However, Applicant’s arguments relating to claim 1 have been rendered moot as Christensen (DE 835635 C) has been provided to teach “said first manifold (3) comprises a slot (6) positioned at the base, the slot (6) running along a majority of the length of the base of the manifold, wherein said slot of the first manifold coacts with air from said at least one fan to create an air blade exiting from said slot around a face of the user; and a filter (7) arranged to purify air, the filter associated with the at least one fan (2),wherein said first manifold (3) comprises a plurality of holes (9) adapted to feed the air (A) purified by the filter (7) into a space (S) located between the air blade (L) and the face of the user (U), through said holes (9)” as recited in amended claim 1 (see 35 U.S.C 103 Rejection of amended claim 1 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sullivan (US 2032101 A): Regarding an air face shield creating an air curtain that traverses over a user’s face to protect the user from hazardous contaminants and particles in the air.
Rosendahl & Krisko (US 3881478 A): Regarding a hard hat with a slot in a brim of the hard hat such that high velocity air exits the slot and encloses the wearer’s face to protect the wearer against inhalation of air-borne particulate matter.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAYLE DALE whose telephone number is (571)272-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:45am to 5:45pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brandy Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABIGAYLE DALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785