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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made to Applicant's claim to priority to PCT/EP2022/063665 filed 5/19/2022 and ATA 50428/2021 filed 5/28/2021.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: air inlet opening 31. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, and 4-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4-20 all start “The assembly”. This should read --The protective hood assembly-- to maintain consistency with the independent claim.
Claim 1 recites “which covers the user’s head”, ln 2. This should read --configured to cover a user’s head-- to more clearly convey that the claim is not encompassing part of a human organism.
Claim 1 recites “the used air” in line 6. This should read --used air--.
Claim 4 recites “the crown and the front”, line 2. This should read --a crown and a front--.
Claim 10 recites “the power supply unit”, line 2. This should read --the self-sufficient power supply unit-- to maintain consistent terminology with claim 9.
Claim 10 recites “the inner side”, line 3. This should read --an inner side--.
Claim 13 recites “the air quantity”, line 7. This should read --an air quantity--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-6, 9-12, 18, and 20, and claims 7-8, 13-17, and 19 by dependency, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 4-6, 9-12, and 20, the phrase "preferably" renders each claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Any limitations after the phrase “preferably” are interpreted as not being a part of the claimed invention and therefore, not limiting. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, these optional limitations have been examined.
Similarly, claim 18 recites the phrase “in particular” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the following limitation is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of this Office Action, limitations after the phrase “in particular” are interpreted as not being a part of the claimed invention and therefore, not limiting. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the optional limitations have been examined.
Claim 1 recites “A protective hood assembly, comprising a protective hood which covers the user's head and shoulders made from flexible, pliable material”, ln 2. It is unclear if (1) the hood covers the user’s head and shoulders and is further made from a flexible, pliable material or (2) the hood covers the user’s head and the assembly also comprises shoulders made from a flexible, pliable material. For the purposes of this Office Action, this limitation is interpreted as a protective hood covers the user’s head and shoulders and is made from a flexible, pliable material.
Claim 1 also recites “which is attached to the mounting structure (18) within the protective hood (1)”, line 5-6. It is unclear if this limitation applies to the housing (5) or the protective hood (1). For the purposes of this Office Action, this limitation is interpreted as applying to the housing.
Claim 1 recites “further comprising an air inlet opening (31) allowing unimpeded flow-through and leading to the fan (6) in the protective hood”, line 7-9. It is unclear if the air inlet opening is in the protective hood and leads to the fan or if the air inlet opening is further comprised in the protective hood assembly and leads to the fan which is in the protective hood. For the purposes of this Office Action, this limitation is interpreted as the air inlet opening being in the protective hood.
Claim 1 recites “routed in a sealed manner through the air inlet opening (31) of the protective hood (1) on the outer side thereof”, line 10-11. It is unclear if “thereof“ refers to the protective hood or the air inlet opening. For the purposes of this Office Action, this “thereof” is interpreted as referring to the protective hood.
Claim 11 recites “the housing (5) has a receptacle for the self-sufficient power supply unit (15), preferably in the longitudinal central plane of the mounting structure (18), which can be directly coupled with the housing, preferably by way of insertion into the housing”. It is unclear if the mounting structure, the self-sufficient power supply, or the receptacle can be directly coupled with the housing, preferably by way of insertion into the housing. For the purposes of this Office Action, this limitation is interpreted as applying to the self-sufficient power supply.
Claim 13 recites “an evaluation unit (41) with at least one input for the signal from the sensor unit (42) and an output for a control signal for the fan, a control unit (9) for the fan (6) with an input for the control signal from the evaluation unit”, line 3-5. There is no antecedent basis for “the signal”. It is also unclear what this limitation means. For the purposes of this Office Action, it is interpreted as the evaluation unit receiving an input signal from the sensor unit and outputting a control signal for the fan.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the unit” in line 2. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the sensor unit, the evaluation unit, or the control unit from claim 13 or imposing a new unit limitation. For the purposes of this Office Action, “the unit” is interpreted as referring to the evaluation unit.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a control assembly”, line 2. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the control assembly from claim 1 or a new control assembly. For the purposes of this Office Action, this limitation is interpreted as referring to the control assembly from claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 recites “the power supply unit (15) is positioned at a distance from the housing (5) on the inner side of the protective hood (1), preferably on a carrying strap or browband, and preferably on the rear side opposite the viewing window”. Claim 11, which is dependent on claim 10, recites “the housing (5) has a receptacle for the self-sufficient power supply unit (15), preferably in the longitudinal central plane of the mounting structure (18), which can be directly coupled with the housing (5), preferably by way of insertion into the housing”. Claim 11 fails to include all the limitations of claim 10 since a power supply that is inserted into the housing cannot be distant from the housing as required by claim 10.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajianpour (US 6374823 B1), in view of Reshef et al. (US 20240157178 A1), hereafter Reshef, in view of McGrath et al. (US 20240009490 A1), hereafter McGrath, in view of Van Nortwick et al. (US 11793261 B2), hereafter Van Nortwick.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Hajianpour discloses a protective hood assembly (protective structure; abstract), comprising a protective hood (head covering 10; Fig. 1, col. 3 ln 63-col. 4 ln 9) which covers the user's head and shoulders (head covering 10 covers the head and shoulders; Fig. 1, col. 4 ln 5-6) made from flexible, pliable material (head covering 10 is constructed of a fabric material; col. 3 ln 65-col. 4 ln 9) and with a viewing window (viewing aperture 14; Fig. 1, col. 4 ln 10-12), a mounting structure (face shield 12; Fig. 1-3) for the protective hood (head covering 10 is attached to face shield 12; Fig. 1-3, col. 4 ln 34-46), an active air exchange system with a fan (fan 82; Fig. 3), a housing (fan 82 is enclosed by a housing at the front of support structure 32; Fig. 3) for the fan (fan 82 at the front of support structure 32; Fig. 3, col. 5 ln 41-46) arranged within and separate from the protective hood (support structure 32 with fan 82 is arranged within head covering 10 and separate from the head covering 10; Fig. 1-3), which is attached to the mounting structure (support structure 32 with fan 82 is attached to face shield 12; Fig. 2-3, col. 4 ln 29-35) within the protective hood (support structure 32 with fan 82 and face shield 12 are within head covering 10; Fig. 1-3), and further comprising an air inlet opening (aperture 16 in rear of head covering 10; Fig. 3, col. 5 ln 38-42) allowing unimpeded flow-through (aperture 16 is unimpeded; Fig. 3) and leading to the fan in the protective hood (aperture 16 leads to fan 82 in head covering 10; Fig. 3), and further comprising an inlet port emanating from the housing (support structure 32 extends rearward toward rear end wall 78 of support structure 32 which is slotted to pass air; Fig. 3, col. 5 ln 38-46), forming a releasable connection between the mounting structure and the protective hood (face shield 12 and head covering 10 are attached around the aperture 16; Fig. 3, col. 4 ln 15-21), wherein the air inlet opening (31) and/or the inlet port (5b) is/are covered by a cleanroom fabric or filter fleece (filter 80 covers aperture 16 and rear end wall 78; Fig. 3, col. 5 ln 38-46), preferably by an FFP2 protection class material, or by a breathing air filter (7) for fresh air placed on the inlet port (5b) on the outside of the protective hood (1) in front of the fan (6), or by a mesh cover (34).
Hajianpour does not disclose a filter (8) for the used air integrated in the protective hood (1).
Reshef teaches a protective hood (abstract) comprising a filter for used air integrated in the hood (hood 102 comprises a filtering portion 118 for exhaled air; Fig. 1, par. 0053) for the purpose of preventing the release of harmful agents exhaled by the wearer into the environment (par. 0053).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hajianpour to comprise a filter for the used air integrated in the protective hood as taught by Reshef for the purpose of preventing the release of harmful agents exhaled by the wearer into the environment (Reshef par. 0053).
Hajianpour does not disclose the inlet port is routed in a sealed manner through the air inlet opening (31) of the protective hood (1) on the outer side thereof.
McGrath teaches wherein the inlet port of the housing of the fan is routed in a sealed manner through the air inlet opening of the protective hood on the outer side thereof (spigot 22 extends out from fan 16 through an aperture in the hood 40 to the outside of the hood 6 and can be sealed by a sealing member; Fig. 1, 6, par. 0018, 0056, 0083) for the purpose of placing the filter externally to the hood, allowing easy replacement of the filter and shaping the filter to draw air from a larger surface area (par. 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hajianpour wherein the inlet port is routed in a sealed manner through the air inlet opening of the protective hood on the outer side thereof as taught by McGrath for the purpose of placing the filter externally to the hood, allowing easy replacement of the filter and shaping the filter to draw air from a larger surface area (McGrath par. 0059).
The modified Hajianpour does not explicitly disclose a corresponding control assembly for the fan.
Van Nortwick teaches a surgical helmet with a fan and a garment worn over the head (abstract, Fig. 1) wherein the fan has a corresponding control assembly (motor rotates the fan according to commands to control the actuation and adjust the rotational speed of the fan; col. 6 ln 30-35) for the purpose of providing adequate ventilation to avoid undesirable conditions inside the garment (col. 6 ln 21-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hajianpour to include a corresponding control assembly for the fan as taught by Van Nortwick for the purpose of providing adequate ventilation to avoid undesirable conditions inside the garment (Van Nortwick col. 6 ln 21-35).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the modified Hajianpour discloses the assembly according to Claim 1 (shown above), wherein the housing (5) is arranged in the region between the crown and the front of the protective hood (housing of fan 82 at the front of support structure 32 is arranged in the front upper region of the head covering 10; Hajianpour Fig. 3) and is preferably connected with the mounting structure in this region (housing of fan 82 at the front of support structure 32 is connected with face shield 12, as seen in Hajianpour Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the modified Hajianpour discloses the assembly according to Claim 1 (shown above), wherein the inlet port preferably passes through an upper section of the viewing window covered by the protective hood (front portion of support structure 32 passes through an upper section of the viewing window 14 of head covering 10; Hajianpour Fig. 3) and that wherein the breathing air filter (7) is preferably arranged above the visible area of the viewing window (filter 80 is arranged above the viewing window 14 at the rear; Hajianpour Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the modified Hajianpour discloses the assembly according to Claim 1 (shown above), wherein the air inlet opening is arranged on the rear side of the protective hood (aperture 16 in rear of head covering 10; Hajianpour Fig. 1-3), wherein a possible breathing air filter is preferably also arranged on the rear side of the protective hood (filter 80 at rear of head covering 10; Hajianpour Fig. 3).
The modified Hajianpour does not disclose the housing of the fan is arranged on the rear side of the protective hood, and the housing of the fan and the air inlet opening are preferably at the level of the neck section of the protective hood.
McGrath teaches a respirator hood (abstract) wherein the housing of the fan is arranged on the rear side of the protective hood (pump 16 by filter 20 at the rear of yoke 4; Fig. 6, par. 0058), and the housing of the fan and the air inlet opening are preferably at the level of the neck section of the protective hood (housing of pump 16 and an aperture 40 in the hood 6 are at the neck level; Fig. 1, 6, 9) for the purpose of increasing user comfort and preventing the assembly from becoming top-heavy and falling off the user if the user's head is tilted too far (par. 0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hajianpour to arrange the housing of the fan and the air inlet opening at the level of the neck section of the protective hood for the purpose of increasing user comfort and preventing the assembly from becoming top-heavy and falling off the user if the user's head is tilted too far (McGrath par. 0005).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the modified Hajianpour discloses the assembly according to Claim 6 (shown above), wherein a mounting frame or an assembly with at least one carrying strap beneath the protective hood is deployable and releasably connectable with the housing (Fig. 2-3, col. 4 ln 65-col. 5 ln 4), or wherein the housing is releasably connectable with the mounting structure (the ends of the support structure 32 which include housing of fan 82 are attached to the face shield 12, by means of an adhesive or clips; Hajianpour Fig. 3, col. 4 ln 31-35).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the modified Hajianpour discloses the assembly according to Claim 1 (shown above), wherein the mounting structure and/or the housing is/are mounted on a helmet positioned within the protective hood (face shield 12 and support structure 32 are mounted on a cap 40 position within head covering 10; Hajianpour Fig. 2-3, col. 4 ln 46-65).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the modified Hajianpour discloses the assembly according to Claim 1 (shown above), wherein the drive of the fan (the control assembly for the fan of Van Nortwick sends commands to a motor of the fan; col. 6 ln 30-35) is integrated in the housing thereof (power to operate fan 82 is provided by battery 84 through cord 83 to housing of fan 82 at the front of support structure 32; Fig. 3, col. 5 ln 41-50) and wherein preferably a self-sufficient power supply unit can be coupled to the housing (battery 84 is coupled to the fan 82 at the front of support structure 32 by cord 83 to provide electrical power to the fan 82; Hajianpour Fig. 3, col. 5 ln 41-50).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the modified Hajianpour discloses the assembly according to Claim 1 (shown above), wherein at least a partial area of the protective hood is made of a filter fleece (filtering portion 118 of hood is made of a filtering sheet which may be a non-woven fabric; Reshef par. 0053), preferably an FFP2 filter fleece, which represents the filter for the used air (filtering portion 118 filters exhaled air; Reshef par. 0053), wherein the partial area is preferably arranged on the rear side of the protective hood (Reshef Fig. 1 shows filtering portion 118 on rear of hood), or wherein the entire protective hood (1) is made of a cleanroom fabric, preferably according to DIN EN ISO 14644-1, or a filter fleece, preferably an FFP2 filter material.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajianpour, in view of Reshef, in view of McGrath, in view of Van Nortwick, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hajianpour (US 11166515 B1), hereafter Hajianpour ‘515.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the modified Hajianpour discloses the assembly according to Claim 9 (shown above), wherein the power supply unit is positioned at a distance from the housing (battery 84 provided away from the housing; Hajianpour Fig. 1) and is connected with the drive and the control assembly for the fan via a preferably flexible electricity and control line (battery 84 is coupled to the fan 82 at the front of support structure 32 by cord 83 to provide electrical power to the fan 82, Hajianpour Fig. 3, col. 5 ln 41-50; this cord would also provide power to the fan control assembly and motor of Van Nortwick).
The modified Hajianpour does not disclose the power supply unit is positioned on the inner side of the protective hood, preferably on a carrying strap or browband, and preferably on the rear side opposite the viewing window.
Hajianpour ‘515 teaches a helmet/hood assembly (abstract; Fig. 7-8) wherein the power supply unit (battery pack 370; Fig. 7-8, col. 10 ln 26-29) is positioned on the inner side of the protective hood (pack 370 on inner side of hood 310; Fig. 8, col. 10 ln 26-29), preferably on a carrying strap or browband (pack 370 is attached to headband support assembly 312; Fig. 8, col. 10 ln 26-29), and preferably on the rear side opposite the viewing window (pack 370 is on a rear side opposite face shield 318; Fig. 8) for the purpose of providing a self-contained device with an integrated power supply (col. 6 ln 61-col. 7 ln 4, col. 3 ln 1-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hajianpour wherein the power supply unit is positioned on the inner side of the protective hood, preferably on a carrying strap or browband, and preferably on the rear side opposite the viewing window since Hajianpour ‘515 teaches this is a known configuration in the art for providing a self-contained device with an integrated power supply in place of the previous rechargeable waist-mounted battery supply (Hajianpour ‘515 col. 6 ln 61-col. 7 ln 4, col. 3 ln 1-18).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the modified Hajianpour discloses the assembly according to Claim 10 (shown above).
The modified Hajianpour does not disclose wherein the housing has a receptacle for the self-sufficient power supply unit, preferably in the longitudinal central plane of the mounting structure, which can be directly coupled with the housing, preferably by way of insertion into the housing.
Hajianpour ‘515 teaches an embodiment of the helmet/hood assembly wherein the housing has a receptacle for the self-sufficient power supply unit, preferably in the longitudinal central plane of the mounting structure, which can be directly coupled with the housing, preferably by way of insertion into the housing (Fig. 4 and 5 show a battery 130 inserted into a receptacle of a housing in the longitudinal central plane of a mounting structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hajianpour with the structure as taught by Hajianpour ‘515 since Hajianpour ‘515 teaches that this is a viable alternative arrangement.
Claim(s) 13, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajianpour, in view of Reshef, in view of McGrath, in view of Van Nortwick, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McIntosh et al. (US 20240245940 A1), hereafter McIntosh.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the modified Hajianpour discloses the assembly according to Claim 1 (shown above).
The modified Hajianpour does not disclose further comprising a sensor unit (42), which emits at least one signal representing the user's breathing rate, an evaluation unit (41) with at least one input for the signal from the sensor unit (42) and an output for a control signal for the fan, a control unit (9) for the fan (6) with an input for the control signal from the evaluation unit (41), wherein the evaluation unit is configured so as to generate a control signal proportional to the breathing rate for the fan (6) such that the air quantity propelled by means of the fan (6) is proportional to the breathing rate.
McIntosh teaches a protective face mask (par. 0001) comprising a sensor unit (built-in sensors 406A and 406B; Fig. 8, par. 0083-0084), which emits at least one signal representing the user's breathing rate (sensor can detect user’s breathing rate; par. 0084), an evaluation unit with at least one input for the signal from the sensor unit and an output for a control signal for the fan (MCU 402 gathers information from sensors 406A/B and determine a fan speed; Fig. 8, par. 0068, 0084), a control unit for the fan with an input for the control signal from the evaluation unit (MCU issues commands to adjust fans; par. 0084), wherein the evaluation unit is configured so as to generate a control signal proportional to the breathing rate for the fan such that the air quantity propelled by means of the fan is proportional to the breathing rate (MCU system adjusts speed of fans based on breathing rate; par. 0084) for the purpose of providing good user experience by keeping fans speeds as low as possible to minimize noise level (par. 0083).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hajianpour to comprise a sensor unit, which emits at least one signal representing the user's breathing rate, an evaluation unit with at least one input for the signal from the sensor unit and an output for a control signal for the fan, a control unit for the fan with an input for the control signal from the evaluation unit, wherein the evaluation unit is configured so as to generate a control signal proportional to the breathing rate for the fan such that the air quantity propelled by means of the fan is proportional to the breathing rate as taught by McIntosh for the purpose of providing good user experience by keeping fans speeds as low as possible to minimize noise level (McIntosh par. 0083).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the modified Hajianpour discloses the assembly according to Claim 13 (shown above), wherein the evaluation unit is configured such that the control signal for the fan is only generated after a predeterminable number of shortened or extended breathing cycles (MCU system adjusts speed of fans based on breathing rate, McIntosh par. 0084; a number of shortened or extended breathing cycles would signal a change in breathing rate and cause the fan speed to be adjusted).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the modified Hajianpour discloses the assembly according to Claim 13 (shown above), wherein the fan is connected with a control assembly (motor 64 of Van Nortwick controls the fan, col. 6 ln 30-35), wherein the control assembly is preferably integrated in the housing of the fan (motor 64 of Van Nortwick is in the housing of the fan 62, as seen in Fig. 3).
The modified Hajianpour does not disclose the control assembly initiates operation of the fan after placement of the breathing air filter or the mesh cover in the inlet port.
McGrath teaches a respirator wherein operation of the fan is after placement of the breathing air filter or the mesh cover in the inlet port (presence of the filter activates a safety switch which must be depressed in order to provide power to the pump; par. 0058) for the purpose of preventing operation of the hood without a filter (par. 0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hajianpour to initiate operation of the fan after placement of the breathing air filter or the mesh cover in the inlet port as taught by McGrath for the purpose of preventing operation of the hood without a filter (McGrath par. 0058).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajianpour, in view of Reshef, in view of McGrath, in view of Van Nortwick, in view of McIntosh, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (“A pilot study of minimum operational flow for loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators used in healthcare cleaning services”, published May 13, 2019), hereafter Zhu.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the modified Hajianpour discloses the assembly according to Claim 13 (shown above).
The modified Hajianpour does not explicitly disclose the air quantity is in a range of between 40 l/min and 100 l/min.
Zhu teaches that a maximum airflow for a loose-fitting PAPR can vary from 41-145 L/min (conclusion of Zhu).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hajianpour to provide an air quantity of 41-145 L/min (conclusion of Zhu).
The modified Hajianpour discloses providing an air quantity of 41-145 L/min (conclusion of Zhu).
However, the modified Hajianpour does not explicitly disclose the air quantity being between 40-100 L/min.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air quantity of the modified Hajianpour from between 41-145 L/min to 40-100 L/min since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajianpour, in view of Reshef, in view of McGrath, in view of McIntosh, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hall et al. (US 20220296939 A1), hereafter Hall.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the modified Hajianpour discloses the assembly according to Claim 13 (shown above).
The modified Hajianpour does not disclose wherein the sensor unit has a pressure sensor for the air within the protective hood.
Hall teaches a filtering head covering (abstract) wherein the sensor unit has a pressure sensor for the air within the hood for the purpose of regulating the pressure inside the hood (the air movers may comprise a pressure sensor regulate the pressure inside the head covering device; par. 0113).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hajianpour to include a pressure sensor as taught by Hall for the purpose of regulating the pressure inside the hood (Hall par. 0113).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the modified Hajianpour discloses the assembly according to Claim 13 (shown above).
The modified Hajianpour does not disclose wherein the sensor unit (42) has a CO2 sensor (44) and wherein the evaluation unit is configured such that if a threshold value for the CO2 concentration within the protective hood (1) is exceeded, the fan (6) is sped up and/or a warning signal is generated.
Hall teaches a filtering head covering (abstract) wherein the sensor unit has a CO2 sensor (carbon dioxide concentration sensor; par. 0172) and wherein the evaluation unit (processor; par. 0172) is configured such that if a threshold value for the CO2 concentration within the protective hood is exceeded, the fan is sped up and/or a warning signal is generated (processor provides instructions to the controller to increase the rate of the air mover when the concentration of carbon dioxide rises above a predetermined level, a user warning system alerts the user when the concentration of carbon dioxide rises above the predetermined level; par. 0172) for the purpose of keeping oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations within the hood at acceptable levels for the user (par. 0171-0172).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hajianpour wherein the sensor unit has a CO2 sensor and wherein the evaluation unit is configured such that if a threshold value for the CO2 concentration within the protective hood is exceeded, the fan is sped up and/or a warning signal is generated for the purpose of keeping oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations within the hood at acceptable levels for the user (Hall par. 0171-0172).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajianpour, in view of Reshef, in view of McGrath, in view of McIntosh, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Su et al. (EP 3446755 A1), hereafter Su.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the modified Hajianpour discloses the assembly according to Claim 13 (shown above).
The modified Hajianpour does not disclose wherein a safety algorithm is implemented in the unit which initiates at least a predeterminable action in the event of a non-detectable and/or absent pressure change, and in particular initiates a warning signal and/or switches the fan to a safety mode.
Su teaches a breathing device with a fan (abstract) wherein a safety algorithm is implemented in the unit which initiates at least a predeterminable action in the event of a non-detectable and/or absent pressure change, and in particular initiates a warning signal and/or switches the fan to a safety mode (breathing is monitored by pressure changes in the device and when disturbed breathing is detected, such as if the user does not breathe, meaning absent pressure change, the fan is run in a second mode at a continuous speed to prevent interference with the user’s breathing; par 0072-0073) for the purpose of facilitating the user’s breathing (par. 0072).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hajianpour wherein a safety algorithm is implemented in the unit which initiates at least a predeterminable action in the event of a non-detectable and/or absent pressure change, and in particular initiates a warning signal and/or switches the fan to a safety mode as taught by Su for the purpose of facilitating the user’s breathing (Su par. 0072).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajianpour, in view of Reshef, in view of McGrath, in view of McIntosh, in view of Su, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Zhu.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the modified Hajianpour discloses the assembly according to Claim 18 (shown above).
The modified Hajianpour does not disclose wherein in safety mode the fan propels an air quantity of 80 l/min.
Zhu teaches that a maximum airflow for a loose-fitting PAPR can vary from 41-145 L/min (conclusion of Zhu).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hajianpour to provide an air quantity of 41-145 L/min in the safety mode (conclusion of Zhu).
The modified Hajianpour discloses providing an air quantity of 41-145 L/min in the safety mode (conclusion of Zhu).
The modified Hajianpour does not explicitly disclose the air quantity being 80 L/min.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hajianpour to provide 80 L/min in the safety mode since determining the optimal value would only have required routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Klotz et al. (US 20030182710 A1) discloses a protective garment with air mover and filter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY RHEE whose telephone number is (703)756-5954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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.
/K.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights