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 amendment filed on 7/8/26 in which claims 1 and 62 have been amended and claim 11 is canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4, 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 is an 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, 4, 13, 14, 22, 24, 31, 50, 85, 89, 104, 107, 122, and 166 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willan (US 2022/0118289, hereinafter Willan. The examiner notes that the date of the provisional of 10/21/20 is being relied upon for the rejection)
Regarding claim 1, Willan teaches a personal protection air shield device (Fig. 2: 200, paragraph 51) comprising:
an airflow generating device (Paragraph 51, air pump (Fig. 3: air pump 380); and
an airflow device having a vent or a plurality of exit ports (Fig. 1A: 120 with vents 125, Fig. 6D, paragraph 49), wherein the airflow device is flexible and/or moldable (paragraph 49, flexible flow manifold 120, paragraph 56) in communication with the airflow-generating device (Fig. 3: 120 in communication with 380 via tubing 140, paragraph 49); and
wherein airflow is emitted through the vent or plurality of exit ports to create a shield of air spanning between 180 degrees and 360 degrees about the circumference of the head of the subject wearing said personal protection air shield device. (Paragraph 49, Figs. 1A-1C, the entire system can be removably and adjustably attached to any type of head covering with a brim, or to glasses other headbands, visors, or head mounts, paragraph 59 extends temple to temple)
Willan teaches that the airflow is substantially vertical and forward angled plane of flowing air (paragraph 34) but does not explicitly 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 Willan with laminar airflow as taught by Osipov in order to make an air curtain of a predetermined shape. (paragraph 49)
Regarding claim 2, Willan in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 1, and Willan further teaches wherein the personal protection air-shield device is a personal eye-zone protection air-shield device. (Fig. the airflow 130 flows over the user’s face which includes the eyes of the user)
Regarding claim 4, Willan in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 1, and Willan further teaches wherein the airflow generating device further comprising a fan (Fig. 1: blower paragraph 44) and/or further comprises an air-intake port and an air-output port. (Fig. 3, air intake 270, paragraph 52, air output 384, Fig. 4A)
Regarding claim 13, Willan in view of Osipov teaches the air-shield device of claim 1, and Willan further teaches wherein the personal protection air-shield device further comprises an air cleaning device. (paragraph 52, air intake includes filter 275, covers intake to filter the air)
Regarding claim 14, Willan in view of Osipov teaches the air-shield device of claim 1, Willan further teaches wherein the airflow -generating device is connected to an air cleaning device via the air-intake port of said airflow generating device. (Paragraph 52, filter is located at the intake)
Regarding claim 22, Willan in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 13, Willan further teaches wherein the air cleaning device comprising an air cleaning filter. (Paragraph 52, air becomes filtered)
Regarding claim 24, Willan in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 22, and Willan further teaches wherein the air cleaning filter excludes (filters) an airborne agent and/or an airborne particle. (Paragraph 52, may be an N-95 mask filter)
Regarding claim 31, Willan in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 1, Willan 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.(Paragraph 52, the air is filtered and then sent to the flowable manifold and through the vents)
Regarding claim 50, Willan in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 1, and Willan further teaches wherein one or more exit ports of the plurality of exit ports is a vent. (Paragraph 49, fluid distribution ports 125, Fig. 1C and so would be considered vents)
Regarding claim 85, Willan in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 1, and Willan 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. 1A)
Regarding claim 89, Willan in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 1, and Willan further teaches wherein the laminar airflow device is moldable to adopt the shape of the head covering, (paragraph 48) 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. (paragraph 56, fluid manifold can include clips, ties, magnets, adhesives capable of attaching flowable fluid manifold 120 to a head covering or apparel worn on the head)
Regarding claim 104, Willan in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 1, and Willan 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. (Willan, see Figs. 3, 5 the device extends over the face which is at least 10% of the circumference of the head, Osipov, See figs. 1A, 6D, 7, the vent extends over the face which is at least 10% of the circumference of the head)
Regarding claim 107, Willan in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 62, and Willan 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. (Willan, Fig. 7 are directed downwards toward feet of the subject)
Regarding claim 122, Willan in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 1, and Willan further teaches wherein the airflow generating device is attachable to a spectacle device. (paragraph 10, may be connected to glasses, paragraph 38)
Regarding claim 166, Willan in view of Osipov teaches a method of protecting the eye zone or T-zone of a subject in need (paragraph 8), comprising the subject wearing the personal protection air shield device of claim 1. (Fig. 7)
Claims 62, 68, 72, and 80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willan in view of Osipov, and further in view of Magee (US 2022/0053856), hereinafter Magee.
Regarding claim 62, Willan in view of Osipov the air-shield device of claim 1, Willan in view of Osipov does not teach wherein the laminar airflow is emitted through the vent or plurality of exit ports to create a shield of laminar air spanning 360 degrees about the circumference of the head of the subject wearing said personal protection air-shield device.
However, Magee teaches a diffuser headband system for 360 degrees of air distribution (Abstract, supported in paragraphs 7, 10 and figure 1) of the provisional application) wherein the laminar airflow is emitted through the vent or plurality of exit ports to create a shield of laminar air spanning 360 degrees about the circumference of the head of the subject wearing said personal protection air-shield device. (Fig. 1 C)
It would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art to have provided the air-shield device of Willan with 360 degrees of personal protection as taught by Magee in order to better protect from possible contaminants.
Regarding claim 68, Willan in view of Osipov and Magee teaches 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 Figs 1A, Fig. 7)
Regarding claim 72, Willan in view of Osipov and Magee teaches the air-shield device of claim 62, and Willam in view of Osipov and Magee further teaches wherein the emitted laminar airflow is about the circumference of the head of the subject wearing said personal protection air-shield device. (Magee Fig. 1, Abstract)
Regarding claim 80, Willan in view of Osipov and Magee teaches 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 Willan as taught by Osipov in order to permit saving battery power when the surrounding air is motionless)
Claim 143 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willan in view of Osipov, and further in view of Zereshkian (US 2019/0255367), hereinafter Zereshkian.
Regarding claim 143, Willan 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)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wilson (US 20140102442), Kitchen (US Pat. No 2402820), and Clack (US 20220126126) teach similar air curtain devices.
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 MARGARET M LUARCA whose telephone number is (303)297-4312. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 am - 3:00 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
Prosecution Insights