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 of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, comprising claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 8/25/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/25/26.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “computer monitor assembly” as recited in at least claim 3 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. The element number associated with the “computer monitor assembly” in the PGPUB is “302”. However, the only depiction of “302” appears to be in Fig. 18, which associates “302” with a duct-like structure that one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize as a “computer monitor assembly”. Therefore, it’s the Examiner’s understanding that this is a typo. Corrected drawing sheets are respectfully requested. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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
Claims 3 and 8-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 3, lines 2-3, “portion of the air inlet is in use positioned below” should read “portion of the air inlet is
The same modification should be made to claims 8-10.
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.
Claims 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claim 6, lines 1-2 recites “a gap between the computer monitor assembly is closed” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which structures the gap is located between because only the computer monitor assembly is recited. Lines 2-3 of the claim recite “screen extending between the air handling unit and the computer monitor assembly”, so it appears the gap is located between the air handling unit and the computer monitor assembly. This seems to correspond with what is shown in Figs. 3-4 of the as-filed disclosure, though it is difficult to tell for certain because the computer monitor assembly is not identified. For the purposes of substantiative examination, the gap is interpreted as being between the air handling unit and the computer monitor assembly.
Claim 7, line 2 recites “the screen surface” (emphasis added) which lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of substantiative examination, the screen surface recited to in claim 7 will be considered as the same screen surface recited in claim 3.
NOTE: This rejection will be overcome if claim 7 depends from claim 3 instead.
Claim 7, line 3, recites “a computer monitor assembly” (emphasis added) which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the computer monitor assembly recited in line 3 is the same or different from the computer monitor assembly previously recited in line 2. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it is presumed that the computer monitor assembly recited in lines 2 and 3 refers to the same structure.
Claim 9, lines 2-3, recites “the working surface” (emphasis added) which lacks antecedent basis. The term ‘working surface’ appears to be a combination of ‘work surface’ and ‘working space’ as recited in parent claim 1. For the purposes of substantiative examination, it is presumed that the working surface refers to the same structure as the work surface.
Amendments to the claims are kindly requested for clarification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stadler (DE 3623097 A1).
Reference is made to the attached German to English machine translation of Stadler ‘097.
Regarding claim 1, Stadler discloses an apparatus for treating air (Fig. 1, cover plate 3, air conditioning unit 42, exhaust grille 44. Note the air conditioning unit comprises filter 26) from a working space (Fig. 1, space above worktop 14) that lies above a work surface (Fig. 1, worktop 14) and in front of a user of the working space (Fig. 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a user of worktop 14 would be positioned to the left of the worktop 14, therefore the apparatus for treating air would be in front of the user of the working space. Reference the location of the chair in Fig. 2), the apparatus comprising:
an air handling unit (Fig. 1, air conditioning unit 42);
a fan (Fig. 1, radial fan 48) that draws air through an air inlet (Fig. 1, which shows air being drawn into air conditioning unit 42 from the space above worktop 14 via a pathway underneath screen 34) into the air handling unit (Par. 0025, “the air conditioning unit (42) includes a filter (46) on the bottom side, through which the air absorbing the heat of the unit is drawn into the air conditioning unit (42) via a radial fan (48)”), the air inlet in use being located on an opposite side of the work surface from the user (Fig. 1, right of the worktop 14) and drawing air from the working space above the work surface and at least partly from below the level of the user's face (Fig. 1, which shows air being drawn from the space above worktop 14 via a pathway underneath screen 34, which would be at least partly below the level of a user’s face);
a filter within the air handling unit through which air drawn into the air handling unit passes (Fig. 1, filter 26); and
an air outlet through which air leaving the filter is expelled, the air outlet being positioned outside the working space (Fig. 1, exhaust grill 44).
Regarding claim 2, Stadler discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the working space (Fig. 1, space above worktop 14) is further bounded in part by an upright surface in front of the user (Fig. 1, screen 34, which is in front of a user positioned to the left of worktop 14) and the work surface is between the upright surface and the user (Fig. 1, worktop 14 is between the screen 34 and a user positioned to the left of worktop 14), and wherein the air inlet is positioned closer to the upright surface than the user (Fig. 1, which shows air being drawn into air conditioning unit 42 from the space above worktop 14 via a pathway underneath screen 34. Given the air inlet is positioned at least partially underneath screen 34, it must necessarily be positioned closer to the screen 34 (i.e., upright surface) than a user positioned to the left of worktop 14).
Regarding claim 3, Stadler discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the upright surface (Fig. 1, screen 34) comprises a screen surface (Fig. 1, surface of screen 34) of a computer monitor assembly (Fig. 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand screen 34 is part of a computer monitor assembly. Note Par. 0022, “electronic devices (26), (28), (30) and (32) arranged on intermediate shelves (18), (20) or (22) and (24), which are required, for example, for data storage, reception and processing”) and at least a portion of the air inlet is in use positioned below the computer monitor assembly (Fig. 1, air being drawn into air conditioning unit 42 from the space above worktop 14 via a pathway underneath screen 34).
Regarding claim 7, Stadler discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the upright surface (Fig. 1, screen 34, which is in front of a user positioned to the left of worktop 14) comprises the screen surface (Fig. 1, surface of screen 34) of a computer monitor assembly (Fig. 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand screen 34 is part of a computer monitor assembly. Note Par. 0022, as quoted in claim 3) and the air inlet wholly or partially surrounds the screen portion of a computer monitor assembly (Fig. 1, air being drawn into air conditioning unit 42 from the space above worktop 14 via a pathway underneath screen 34. Therefore, the air inlet partially surrounds the screen portion of the computer monitor assembly because it flows underneath the screen surface).
Regarding claim 8, Stadler discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein in use the air outlet (Fig. 1, exhaust grill 44) is positioned behind the computer monitor assembly (Fig. 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand screen 34 is part of a computer monitor assembly. Note Par. 0022, as quoted in claim 3).
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebermann et al. (DE 102008004244 B3, hereafter Ebermann) in view of Hilbig et al. (WO 2018011115 A1, hereafter Hilbig).
Reference is made to the attached German to English machine translation of Ebermann ‘244.
Citations are from Ebermann unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 1, Ebermann discloses an apparatus for treating air (Fig. 3, workstation 3, which comprises filter 26) from a working space (Fig. 3, space above tabletop 5) that lies above a work surface (Fig. 3, tabletop 5) and in front of a user of the working space (Fig. 3 and Par. 0031, which discloses the airflow is blown towards the user. Given the airflow is blown from the right side of tabletop 5, this necessarily means the user is on the left side of tabletop 5), the apparatus comprising:
an air handling unit (Fig. 3, heat exchanger 20, fan 21, filter 26 and cover 34);
a fan (Fig. 3, fan 21) that draws air through an air inlet into the air handling unit (Fig. 3, air duct 41 and Par. 0054, “an air duct 41 is arranged as a feed device 40”), the air inlet in use being located on an opposite side of the work surface from the user (Fig. 3 and Par. 0031, as explained above. Given the air inlet is on the right side of tabletop 5, it is on an opposite side of tabletop 5 from the user located on the left side of tabletop 5);
a filter within the air handling unit through which air drawn into the air handling unit passes (Fig. 3, filter 26); and
an air outlet through which air leaving the filter is expelled, the air outlet being positioned outside the working space (Fig. 3, aperture in cover 34 through which arrows representing airflow exit).
However, Ebermann does not explicitly disclose the fan draws air from the working space above the work surface and at least partly from below the level of the user's face.
NOTE: Depending upon the strength of the fan and the other air currents in the room, it’s the Examiner’s position that fan 21 would be able to draw air from the working space above the work surface and at least partly from below the level of the user's face. However, as this is not explicitly disclosed, Ebermann is modified in view of Hilbig.
Hilbig discloses an apparatus for treating air (Abstract, air purification system 10) from a working space (Fig. 6, space above the table) that lies above a work surface (Fig. 6, table) and in front of a user of the working space (Fig. 6, person) similar to the present invention and Hilbig further discloses it is known for a fan to draw air from the working space above the work surface and at least partly from below the level of the user's face (Fig. 6, air displacement apparatus 103, which draws in air from the space above the table and at least partly from below the user’s face via air inlet 112. See Pg. 7, lines 24-26, “The air purification path 110 further comprises an air displacement apparatus 103, such as a pump, fan…for sucking ambient air into the air purification path 110 through the air inlet 112 and expelling the purified air back into ambient through the adjustable air outlet 114”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ebermann with the direction of air flow as disclosed by Hilbig in order to have the fan drawing air from the working space above the work surface and at least partly from below the level of the user's face and thereby decrease the likelihood for contaminants such as heavy droplets and dust to fall outside the reach of the air inlet. To elaborate, heavy droplets and dust, such as what may be created and/or disturbed if the user coughs, will fall downwards from the user’s mouth due to the effect of gravity, and thus be more likely to enter the air inlet when the air inlet is located below the user. This beneficially increases the effectiveness of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Ebermann, as modified above, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the working space (Fig. 3, space above tabletop 5) is further bounded in part by an upright surface (Fig. 3, monitor 23 and monitor supports 25) in front of the user (Fig. 3, user to the left of tabletop 5. See Par. 0031, as quoted and explained in claim 1) and the work surface (Fig. 3, tabletop 5) is between the upright surface and the user (Fig. 3 and Par. 0031, as quoted and explained in claim 1), and wherein the air inlet (Fig. 3, aperture in cover 34 as modified by the direction of airflow of Hilbig, as explained in claim 1) is positioned at the upright surface (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Ebermann, as modified above, discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the upright surface (Fig. 3, monitor 23 and monitor supports 25) comprises a screen surface (Fig. 3, surface of monitor 23) of a computer monitor assembly (Fig. 3, monitor 23 and monitor supports 25 and Par. 0013, “the workstation arrangement with…a storage area for computer equipment…as well as with a closed table cooling system for dissipating the waste heat from the monitors. Monitor 23 is a computer monitor assembly because it is a monitor that is used with computer equipment) and at least a portion of the air inlet (Fig. 3, aperture in cover 34 as modified by the direction of airflow of Hilbig, as explained in claim 1) is in use positioned below the computer monitor assembly (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Ebermann, as modified above, discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the air handling unit (Fig. 3, heat exchanger 20, fan 21, filter 26 and cover 34) is adapted to lie below the computer monitor assembly (Fig. 3, monitor 23 and monitor supports 25 and Par. 0013, as quoted and explained in claim 3) and to support the computer monitor assembly (Fig. 3, cover 34 at least supports monitor supports 25).
Regarding claim 5, Ebermann, as modified above, discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the air inlet (Fig. 3, aperture in cover 34 as modified by the direction of airflow of Hilbig, as explained in claim 1) is comprised in the air handling unit (Fig. 3, heat exchanger 20, fan 21, filter 26, and cover 34).
Regarding claim 7, Ebermann, as modified above, discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the upright surface (Fig. 3, monitor 23 and monitor supports 25) comprises the screen surface (Fig. 3, surface of monitor 23) of a computer monitor assembly (Fig. 3, monitor 23 and monitor supports 25 and Par. 0013, “the workstation arrangement with…a storage area for computer equipment…as well as with a closed table cooling system for dissipating the waste heat from the monitors. Monitor 23 is a computer monitor assembly because it is a monitor that is used with computer equipment) and the air inlet (Fig. 3, aperture in cover 34 as modified by the direction of airflow of Hilbig, as explained in claim 1) partially surrounds the screen portion of a computer monitor assembly (Fig. 3, which shows the aperture in cover 34 at least partially surrounds the surface of monitor 23 in the horizontal direction).
Regarding claim 8, Ebermann, as modified above, discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein in use the air outlet (Fig. 3, air duct 41 as modified by the direction of airflow of Hilbig, as explained in claim 1) is positioned behind the computer monitor assembly (Fig. 3, monitor 23 and monitor supports 25 and Par. 0013, as quoted and explained in claim 7).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebermann et al. (DE 102008004244 B3, hereafter Ebermann) in view of Hilbig et al. (WO 2018011115 A1, hereafter Hilbig) and further in view of the product titled "Monitor Dust Cover" by "Amazon.com" (see NPL in attached PTO-892, hereinafter Amazon; note a publication date of at least before October 31, 2020 on Pg. 8).
Reference is made to the attached German to English machine translation of Pfeiffer ‘861.
Regarding claim 6, Ebermann, as modified above, discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein a gap exists between the computer monitor assembly (Fig. 3, monitor 23 and monitor supports 25 and Par. 0013, as quoted and explained in claim 3) and the air handling unit (Fig. 3, heat exchanger 20 fan 21, filter 26, and cover 34).
However, Ebermann, as modified above, does not disclose a gap between the computer monitor assembly is closed by a screen extending between the air handling unit and the computer monitor assembly.
Amazon is in the same field of endeavor as computers (Pg. 1, the title includes ‘desktop’ and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the top image on Pg. 4 shows a desktop computer) as the present invention and Amazon further discloses it is known to have a screen (Pg. 1, top figure, dust cover. A screen is designed to protect something, therefore the dust cover is a ‘screen’ because it protects the computer monitor assembly from dust) extending between a surface on which a computer monitor assembly rests (annotated Fig. A, which shows the surface is the top surface of a plate) and the computer monitor assembly (annotated Fig. A, which shows the computer monitor assembly comprises a computer monitor screen and a vertical stand).
PNG
media_image1.png
539
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Surface)][AltContent: textbox (Computer monitor assembly)]
Fig. A: Annotated copy of the top image on Pg. 1 of Amazon showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Ebermann, as modified above, to include the screen as taught by Amazon so a gap between the computer monitor assembly is closed by a screen extending between the air handling unit and the computer monitor assembly and thereby extend the lifespan of the computer monitor assembly and reduce maintenance (As suggested by Pg, 1, ‘About this item’ of Amazon, “Dust & Waterproof: Protects the device from dust accumulation in internal components, as well as from dirt, spills, moisture, and other environmental factors — helping extend its lifespan and reduce maintenance”).
NOTE: The limitation “a gap between the computer monitor assembly is closed by a screen extending between the air handling unit and the computer monitor assembly” is necessarily met by modified Ebermann. To elaborate, Ebermann teaches a gap between the computer monitor assembly and the air handling unit that extends from the bottom of the monitor to the bottom of the monitor support so adding a dust cover that extends from the top of the computer monitor screen to the bottom of the vertical stand of Amazon necessarily means a gap between the computer monitor assembly is closed by a screen extending between the air handling unit and the computer monitor assembly in modified Ebermann.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadler (DE 3623097 A1) in view of Van der Linden (FR 2948784 A3).
Reference is made to the attached French to English machine translation of Van der Linden ‘784.
Regarding claim 9, Stadler discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein: the upright surface (Fig. 1, screen 34) comprises a screen surface (Fig. 1, surface of screen 34); and
the air inlet is in use positioned on the work surface below the screen surface (Fig. 1, which shows air being drawn into air conditioning unit 42 from the space above worktop 14 via a pathway underneath screen 34).
However, Stadler does not disclose the upright surface comprises a screen surface of a laptop computer and the working surface comprises a keyboard portion of the laptop computer; and
the air inlet is in use positioned on the work surface further from the user than the keyboard portion and below the screen surface.
Van der Linden is in the same field of endeavor of computers (Abstract) as the present invention and Van der Linden further discloses it is known for an upright surface (Fig. 1 and Pg. 1, Par. 2, vertical portion of laptop) to comprise a screen surface (Fig. 1 and Pg. 2, Par. 2, “The structure of the laptop is mainly composed of two parts having the characteristic of being able to rotate between them around a horizontal axis. The first part is placed parallel to the plane of the table. This first part is composed mainly of the central unit as well as the battery, to which is fixed the keyboard and the system equivalent to the mouse. The second part is composed of the screen. The screen is attached to the first part by means of a connection generally made by means of a horizontal axis”) of a laptop computer (Fig. 1 and Pg. 1, Par. 2, laptop) and a working surface (Fig. 1 and Pg. 2, Par. 2, “the user has a horizontal worktop (table)”) to comprise a keyboard portion of the laptop computer (Fig. 6, keyboard 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Stadler with the laptop computer of Van der Linden in order to have the upright surface comprises a screen surface of a laptop computer and the working surface comprises a keyboard portion of the laptop computer; and the air inlet is in use positioned on the work surface further from the user than the keyboard portion and below the screen surface and thereby treat air even if a user has a hybrid work schedule. This is beneficial because when the user is in the office, they would be able to use the same laptop they use at home and still be able to treat air, rather than needing to use one laptop at work and a separate laptop at home.
NOTE: The limitation “the air inlet is in use positioned on the work surface further from the user than the keyboard portion” is necessarily met by modified Stadler. To elaborate, Stadler teaches the user is located to the left of the work surface and the air inlet is located to the right of the work surface so adding a keyboard portion to the work surface as disclosed by Van der Linden necessarily means the air inlet is in use positioned on the work surface further from the user than the keyboard portion in modified Stadler.
Regarding claim 10, Stadler, as modified above, discloses the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the air inlet (Stadler: Fig. 1, air being drawn into air conditioning unit 42 from the space above worktop 14 via a pathway underneath screen 34) is in use positioned at a re-entrant corner between the work surface (Stadler: Fig. 1, worktop 14) and a portion of the laptop computer (Van der Linden: Fig. 1 and Pg. 1, Par. 2, laptop) comprising the screen of the laptop computer (Van der Linden: Fig. 1 and Pg. 2, Par. 2, “The structure of the laptop is mainly composed of two parts having the characteristic of being able to rotate between them around a horizontal axis. The first part is placed parallel to the plane of the table. This first part is composed mainly of the central unit as well as the battery, to which is fixed the keyboard and the system equivalent to the mouse. The second part is composed of the screen. The screen is attached to the first part by means of a connection generally made by means of a horizontal axis”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stadler (DE 3623097 A1) in view of Mughal (GB 2469303 A).
Regarding claim 11, Stadler discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Stadler does not disclose the air inlet is elongate in a direction transverse to the user when the user is facing the work surface.
Mughal discloses an apparatus for treating air (Pg. 5, lines 1-2, “The first and/or second passageway may contain a filter for collecting dust particles”) from a working space (Fig. 2, space above desk-top 3) that lies above a work surface (Fig. 2, desk-top 3) and in front of a user of the working space (Fig. 2, stick figure, which represents a user) and Mughal further discloses it is known for an air inlet (Figs. 1 and 2, inlet 14) to be elongate in a direction transverse to the user (Figs. 1-2, which show inlet 14 is elongate in a direction transverse to the stick figure that represents a user) when the user is facing the work surface (Fig. 2, the stick figure representing a user is facing the desk-top 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Stadler with the air inlet as disclosed by Mughal in order to have the air inlet is elongate in a direction transverse to the user when the user is facing the work surface and thereby decrease the likelihood for contaminants such as heavy droplets and dust to fall outside the reach of the air inlet. This is beneficial because it increases the effectiveness of the apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pfeiffer (DE 10111861 A1) discloses a gap between a computer monitor assembly and the surface on which the computer monitor assembly rests is closed by a screen extending from the surface on which the computer monitor assembly rests to the computer monitor assembly.
Stadler ‘940 (EP 1754940 A2) discloses an apparatus for treating air from a working space that lies above a work surface and in front of a user of the working space, the apparatus comprising: an air handling unit; a fan that draws air through an air inlet into the air handling unit, the air inlet in use being located on an opposite side of the work surface from the user and drawing air from the working space above the work surface and at least partly from below the level of the user's face; and an air outlet through which air leaving the filter is expelled, the air outlet being positioned outside the working space.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elizabeth A Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:30am to 5:30pm 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, Michael Hoang can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights