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
The examiner acknowledges the preliminary amendment filed on 1/16/24 in which claims 3, 5-10, 15-21, 25-30, 51-61, 63-67, 73-79, 81-84, 86-88, 90-103, 105-106, 108-121, 123-142, 144-165, and 167-217 have been canceled. Claims 4, 11, 13-14, 22, 24, 31, 50, 62, 68, 72, 80, 85, 89, 104, 107, 122, 143, and 166 are amended.
Claims 1-2, 4, 11, 13-14, 22, 24, 31, 50, 62, 68, 72, 80, 85, 89, 104, 107, 122, 143, and 166 are pending in the application.
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: air flow generating device in claim 1.
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 § 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 (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 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 1-2, 11, 13-14, 22, 24, 31, 50, 62, 68, 72, 80, 85, 104, 107, 122, and 166 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figueredo et al (US Pat. No. 5,878,742), hereinafter Figueredo in view of Osipov et al (US 2013/0118506), hereinafter Osipov et al.
Regarding claim 1, Figueredo teaches an air-shield device (figs. 1-7, Col. 4: lines 60-67, due to the positive pressure created by the fan 17 air enters into the plenum 13 and is forced downward through perforations 22 and over the breathing zone of a wearer), comprising:
an air-flow generating device (Fig. 1: Fan 17), ; and
an airflow device having a vent or a plurality of exit ports (fig. 1, 1A: baffle 12 with perforations 22), wherein the airflow device is in communication with the airflow-generating device (fig. 1: in communication with fan 17 via tubing 21);
wherein the air-shield is a personal protection air-shield device. (Figs. 2, 2A,3, 5, designed to be worn near the face of the user)
Figueredo does not state the airflow is laminar.
However, Osipov teaches a similar device (Fig. 3) which has laminar airflow. (Paragraphs 50, 57,Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have provided Figueredo with laminar airflow as taught by Osipov in order to make an air curtain of a predetermined shape. (paragraph 49)
Regarding claim 2, Figueredo in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the personal protection air-shield device is a personal eye-zone protection air-shield device. (Figueredo Col. 1: lines 4-8: respirators using a battery operated fan assembly to produce air flow of filtered air over a wearer’s facial breathing zone; Osipov, paragraph 36, method of respiratory organ and eye protection from the ambient aerosol particles provides air streams in the form of the air curtain in front of the protected facial sites)
Regarding claim 4, Figueredo in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 1, and Figueredo further teaches wherein the airflow generating device further comprising a fan (Fig. 1: fan 17) and/or further comprises an air-intake port and an air-output port. (Col. 5: lines 14-17: air intake portion 29 of the fan assembly protrudes through an aperture at a rearmost point and support the filter element 18, outlet of fan 17 to tube 21, Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 11, Figueredo in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 1, and in an alternative embodiment Figueredo teaches wherein the laminar airflow device is flexible and/or moldable. (Fig. 6, col. 6: lines 45-55, the baffle is formed from a flexible base frame portion 56 with a flexible strip 57)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have modified Figueredo in view of Osipov so that the laminar airflow device is flexible or moldable so that it may fit a variety of surfaces.
Regarding claim 13, Figueredo in view of Osipov teaches the air-shield device of claim 1, and Figueredo further teaches wherein the personal protection air-shield device further comprises an air cleaning device. (Col. 4: lines 58-59: a filter element 18 removing particulate matter or harmful gases from the air, Col. 5: lines 15-16: filter element 18)
Regarding claim 14, Figueredo in view of Osipov teaches the air-shield device of claim 1, Figueredo further teaches wherein the airflow -generating device is connected to an air cleaning device via the air-intake port of said airflow generating device. (Fig. 2: filter 18 is connected to air intake 29)
Regarding claim 22, Figueredo in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 13, Figueredo further teaches wherein the air cleaning device comprising an air cleaning filter. (Col. 4: lines 58-59: a filter element 18 removing particulate matter or harmful gases from the air)
Regarding claim 24, Figueredo in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 22, and Figueredo further teaches wherein the air cleaning filter excludes (filters) an airborne agent and/or an airborne particle. (Col. 4: lines 58-59: a filter element 18 removing particulate matter or harmful gases from the air)
Regarding claim 31, Figueredo in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 1, Figueredo further teaches wherein the laminar airflow device emits cleaned, filtered air from the airflow generating device and through the vent or plurality of exit ports.(Col. 5: lines 57-65: a motor and fan assembly draws ambient air through a filter element removing particulate matter or harmful gases from the air, depending on the type of filter utilized, and urges the newly filtered, respirable air through a flexible hose 21 to the nozzle 16…. And is forced downward through perforations 22 and over the breathing zone of a wearer.)
Regarding claim 50, Figueredo in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 1, and Figueredo further teaches wherein one or more exit ports of the plurality of exit ports is a vent. (Fig. 1A: apertures 22 allow air to flow out and so are vents)
Regarding claim 62, Figueredo in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 1, Figueredo in view of Osipov teaches wherein the laminar airflow is emitted through the vent or plurality of exit ports to create a shield of laminar air about the head of the subject wearing said personal protection air-shield device. (Figueredo, Fig. 1A, vents 22, Osipov, paragraph 57, air pipe 7 having an outlet, Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 68, Figueredo in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 62, and Osipov further teaches wherein the emitted laminar airflow is a stream of laminar air or a plurality of streams of laminar air. (See Fig. 3, paragraphs 50, 57)
Regarding claim 72, Figueredo in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 62, and Figueredo in view of Osipov further teaches wherein the emitted laminar airflow is about the circumference of the head of the subject wearing said personal protection air-shield device. (Figueredo, Col. 4: lines 60-65, over, the wearer’s breathing zone, Osipov, Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 80, Figueredo in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 62, and Osipov teaches wherein the rate of the laminar airflow is an adjustable rate and/or an adjustable volume. (Paragraph 53, speed sensors may be installed for automatic regulation of the air curtain flow rate)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have included an adjustable rate airflow in the device of Figueredo as taught by Osipov in order to permit saving battery power when the surrounding air is motionless)
Regarding claim 85, Figueredo in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 1, and Figueredo further teaches wherein the airflow-generating device is attachable to a head covering, comprises a head covering, or is attached to a head covering. (See Figs. 3, 5)
Regarding claim 104, Figueredo in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 1, and Figueredo in view of Osipov teaches wherein the vent has a length extending at least 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, or 90% of the circumference of the head of the subject wearing said personal protection air-shield device. (Figueredo, see Figs. 3, 5 the device extends over the face which is at least 10% of the circumference of the head, Osipov, See fig. 3, the vent extends over the face which is at least 10% of the circumference of the head)
Regarding claim 107, Figueredo in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 62, and Figueredo in view of Osipov further teaches wherein the emitted laminar airflow has a trajectory in the direction from the head towards the feet of the subject wearing said personal protection air-shield device comprising or connected to the head covering. (Figueredo, Figs 4, 5 the apertures 22 are directed downwards toward a feet of the subject, Osipov, Fig. 3, the stream is downward across the face)
Regarding claim 122, Figueredo in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 1, and Figueredo further teaches wherein the airflow generating device is attachable to a spectacle device. (Fig. 5)
Regarding claim 166, Figueredo in view of Osipov teaches a method of protecting the eye zone or T-zone of a subject in need (Figs. 1-7, Figueredo, paragraph 18 Osipov), comprising the subject wearing the personal protection air shield device of claim 1.
Claim 89 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figueredo in view of Osipov, and further in view of Czajka et al (US 2018/0132550), hereinafter Czajka.
Regarding claim 89, Figueredo in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the laminar airflow device is moldable to adopt the shape of the head covering, moldable to adopt the shape of an edge of the head covering, moldable to traverse along an edge of the head covering, moldable to traverse along the perimeter of the head covering, or moldable to adopt the shape of the perimeter of the head covering.
However, Czajka teaches protective apparel (Abstract, Fig. 1) and teaches that the airflow device (Fig. 1: 100) is flexible. (paragraph 59 may be flexible)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have provided Figueredo with a flexible airflow device as taught by Czajka in order to allow the yoke to from fit by bending. (paragraph 59) The examiner notes that by allowing the device of Figueredo to be bendable would allow the device to be fit to a variety of helmet or head covering structures.
Claim 143 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figueredo in view of Osipov, and further in view of Zereshkian (US 2019/0255367), hereinafter Zereshkian.
Regarding claim 143, Figueredo in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the personal protection air-shield device further comprising an air temperature controlling device, an air humidity controlling device, an air ionizing device, or a proximity sensor device.
However, Zereshkian teaches a personalized force air purifier (Abstract, Fig. 6) which comprises an air ionizing device. (Paragraph 39, Figs. 4, 5, the filtering system comprises an ionization system)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to have modified Figueredo in view of Osipov so that the filter system included an ionization system as taught by Zereshkian since released ions act as an electrochemical treatment to kill the bacteria from the ambient air. (paragraph 39)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET M LUARCA whose telephone number is (303)297-4312. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 am - 3:30 pm MT.
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.
/MARGARET M LUARCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785