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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,893 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant Application
US 12,161,893 B2
1. A personal protective system, comprising:
head gear shaped to be worn over the head of a user;
a tube having a first end operatively connected to the head gear and a second end operatively connected to an air supply unit;
wherein the air supply unit is configured to propel filtered air through the tube to the head gear, thereby creating an overpressure inside the head gear.
9. A personal protective system, comprising:
head gear shaped and configured to be worn over a head of a user, …;
a tube having a first end operatively connected to the head gear and a second end operatively connected to an air supply unit,…
wherein the air supply unit is configured to propel filtered air through the tube to the head gear, thereby causing the head gear to inflate and create an overpressure inside the head gear
2. The personal protective system of claim 1, wherein the head gear comprises one or more punctures for releasing exhaled air from the user.
9. …an outlet for releasing air exhaled by the user, the outlet comprising a plurality of punctures formed in the inflatable material and arranged along a bottom periphery of the head gear.
3. The personal protective system of claim 1, wherein the air supply unit comprises a fan operatively connected to and disposed over a filter.
9…. the air supply unit comprising a fan operatively connected to and disposed over a filter
4. The personal protective system of claim 3, wherein the filter comprises an activated carbon (charcoal) filter, a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter, a PM2.5 filter, a MERV13 or MERV16 filter, or any combination thereof.
10. The personal protective system of claim 9, wherein the filter comprises an activated carbon (charcoal) filter, a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter, a PM2.5 filter, a MERV13 or MERV16 filter, or any combination thereof.
5. The personal protective system of claim 3, wherein the second end of the tube is operatively connected to the fan.
11. The personal protective system of claim 9, wherein the second end of the tube is operatively connected to the fan.
6. The personal protective system of claim 1, wherein the head gear is formed of a material selected from vinyl film, acetate, polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, cellophane, or combinations thereof.
12. The personal protective system of claim 9, wherein the head gear is formed of a material selected from vinyl film, acetate, polystyrene, cellophane, or combinations thereof.
Thus, each limitation of claims 1-6 of the instant application are recited in claims 9-12 of US Pat. No. 12,161,893 B2 and the claims are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “head gear shaped to be worn over the head of a user”. This limitation should be amended to recite “a head gear configured to be worn” to properly present the limitation “head gear” and avoid a positive recitation of a human organism.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “one or more punctures for releasing exhaled air from the user”. This limitation should be amended to include “configured for” to avoid a positive recitation of a human organism
Claim 7 recites the limitation “head gear shaped to be worn over the head of a user”. This limitation should be amended to recite “a head gear configured to be worn” to properly present the limitation “head gear” and avoid a positive recitation of a human organism.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a fastener for attachment to the user”. This limitation should be amended to include “configured for” to avoid a positive recitation of a human organism.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a hood capable of enclosing the head and neck of a user”. This limitation should be amended to recite “a hood configured for” to avoid a positive recitation of a human organism.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “an inlet for receiving clean air and an outlet for releasing exhaled air”. This limitation should be amended to recite “an inlet configured for receiving clean air and an outlet configured for releasing exhaled air” to avoid a positive recitation of a human organism.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “than static atmospheric pressure”. This limitation should be amended to recite “a static atmospheric pressure” to properly present the limitation.
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 1-18 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the head" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a head”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the head" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a head”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the outlet tube" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the exit tube”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the level of pressure” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “the overpressure”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the level of pressure…is less than 2atm”. This limitation is considered to be unclear given less than 2atm encompasses pressures which are less than 1atm, and therefore are not “overpressures”. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “less than 2atm but greater than 1atm”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein the transparent portion comprises goggles, a face shield, a visor, or any combination thereof”. This limitation is unclear as to how the claimed transparent shield can have any combination of the three listed transparent portions (i.e. how can the transparent portion have a combination of goggles, face shield, and visor simultaneously?). For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as best understood.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the head and neck" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “a head and a neck”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the level of overpressure…is less than two times the static atmospheric pressure of the environment external to the user”. This limitation is considered to be unclear given less than 2 times the static atmospheric pressure of the environment external to the user encompasses pressures which are less than 1atm, and therefore are not “overpressures”. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret this limitation as “less than two times, but greater than the static atmospheric pressure of the environment external to the user”.
Claims 2-6, 9, 11-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Volmer et al. (US 2017/0001048 A1) (hereinafter Volmer).
In regards to claim 1, Volmer discloses a personal protective system (100; see [0034]; see figure 1), comprising:
head gear (104; see [0034]; see figure 1) shaped to be worn over the head of a user (see figures 1 and 2);
a tube (106; see [0034]; see figure 1) having a first end (118; see [0035]; see figure 1) operatively connected to the head gear (104; see figure 1) and a second end (116; see [0035]; see figure 1) operatively connected to an air supply unit (102; see [0034]; see figure 1);
wherein the air supply unit (102) is configured to propel filtered air through the tube (106) to the head gear (104; see [0035]), thereby creating an overpressure inside the head gear (104; see [0051]).
In regards to claim 3, Volmer discloses the invention as discussed above.
Volmer further discloses wherein the air supply unit (102) comprises a fan (210; see [0038]; see figure 2) operatively connected to and disposed over a filter (204; see [0037]; see figure 2).
In regards to claim 5, Volmer discloses the invention as discussed above.
Volmer further discloses wherein the second end of the tube (116 of 106) is operatively connected to the fan (210; see figure 2).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volmer in view of Ichigaya (US 2017/0135419 A1).
In regards to claim 2, Volmer discloses the invention as discussed above.
Volmer further discloses wherein the head gear (104) comprises one or more outlets (216; see [0039]; see figure 2) for releasing exhaled air from the user (see [0039]).
Volmer does not disclose the outlet is one or more punctures.
However, Ichigaya teaches an analogous garment (10; see [0004]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous air supply unit (30; see [0017]; see figure 1) which comprises a fan (see [0017]) for creating an overpressure within the garment (see [0029] pressure to create space within the garment and user is an overpressure); and an analogous outlet (90; see [0017]; see figure 1) for releasing air from within the garment (see [0026]); wherein the outlet (90) is one or more punctures (91; see [0026]; see figure 1) for the purpose of discharging air from within the garment in a configurable fashion such that the air in an amount substantially equal to the discharge amount of the air (see [0026]).
Therefore 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 outlet as disclosed by Volmer and to have substituted the outlet for the one or more punctures as taught by Ichigaya in order to have provided an improved outlet that would add the benefit of providing the analogous functionality of discharging air from within the garment while adding the benefit of providing a configurable outlet for discharging the air in an amount substantially equal to the discharge amount of the air (see [0026]).
Furthermore, such a modification is held to be obvious since it has been held that “(w)here a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) (see MPEP 2143 I B). Accordingly, Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results. In the instant case, to substitute the outlet of Volmer for the one or more punctures of Ichigaya yields the predictable results of discharging air from within an over-pressured garment worn on the user.
Claim(s) 4, 7-12, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volmer in view of Vrabel (US 5,009,225).
In regards to claim 4, Volmer discloses the invention as discussed above.
Volmer does not explicitly disclose wherein the filter comprises an activated carbon (charcoal) filter, a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter, a PM2.5 filter, a MERV13 or MERV16 filter, or any combination thereof.
However, Vrabel teaches an analogous personal protective system (system as seen in figure 3; see [Col 5 ln 50-67]; see figure 3), comprising: head gear (104; see [Col 5 ln 50-67]; see figure 3) and a filter (118; see [Col 6 ln 9-15]; see figure 3) for providing clean air to the user within the head gear (See [abstract]) wherein the filter (118) comprises an activated carbon (charcoal) filter, a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter (see [Col 6 ln 9-15]), a PM2.5 filter, a MERV 13 or MERV 16 filter, or any combination thereof for the purpose of filtering 99.97% of harmful particles from the air taken in by the fan (see [Col 4 ln 45-50]).
Therefore 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 filter as disclosed by Volmer to have included the HEPA filter as taught by Vrabel in order to have provided an improved filter that would add the benefit of filtering 99.97% of harmful particles from the air taken in by the fan (see [Col 4 ln 45-50]).
In regards to claim 7, Volmer discloses a personal protective system (100; see [0034]; see figure 1), comprising:
head gear (104; see [0034]; see figure 1) shaped to be worn over the head of a user (see figures 1 and 2), wherein the head gear (104) comprises an inlet (120; see [0035]; see figure 1) and an outlet (216; see [0039]; see figure 2);
an inlet tube (106; see [0034]; see figure 1) having a first end (118; see [0035]; see figure 1) operatively connected to the inlet (120) of the head gear (104; see figures 1 and 2) and a second end (116; see [0035]; see figure 1) operatively connected to an air supply unit (102; see [0034]; see figure 1) comprising a fan system (206; see [0038]; see figure 2) and a first filter (204; see [0037]; see figure 2);
wherein the fan system (206) is configured to propel air through the first filter (204) and into the inlet tube (106; see [0035]), thereby creating an overpressure inside the head gear (104; see [0051]).
Volmer does not disclose an exit tube having a first end operatively connected to the outlet of the head gear and a second end operatively connected to a container having a second filter coupled thereto.
However, Vrabel teaches an analogous personal protective system (system as seen in figure 3; see [Col 5 ln 50-67]; see figure 3), comprising: head gear (104; see [Col 5 ln 50-67]; see figure 3) comprising an inlet and outlet of the head gear (104; see figure 3) and inlet tube (120; see [col 6 ln 10-20]); for providing clean air to the user within the head gear (See [abstract]); further comprising an exit tube (130; see [col 6 ln 20-25]; see figure 3) having a first end operatively connected to the outlet of the head gear (104; see figure 3) and a second end operatively connected to a container (112; see [col 6 ln 9-15]; see figure 3; 112 forms a space for receiving stale air and thus is a container) having a second filter (128; see [col 6 ln 20-25]; see figure 2) coupled thereto (see figure 3) for the purpose of providing a means for drawing air from the head gear (see [col 6 ln 20-25]).
Therefore 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 outlet of the head gear as disclosed by Volmer and to have included the exit tube coupled to the outlet of the head gear and container having a second filter coupled thereto as taught by Vrabel in order to have provided an improved personal protective system that would add the benefit of providing a means for drawing air from the head gear (see [col 6 ln 20-25]).
In regards to claim 8, Volmer as now modified by Vrabel discloses the invention as discussed above.
Volmer as now modified by Vrabel further discloses wherein the second end of the outlet tube (end of 130 connected to 112 of Vrabel) is positioned within the container (112 of Vrabel) and under the second filter (128 of Vrabel; the claimed limitation of “under the second filter” is a relative term dependent on the orientation of the user and the container (i.e. a user while holding the container/bucket of the claimed invention can orient the container such that the tube is adjacent to, above, or under the filter respectively); similarly the second end of the exit tube of Volmer as now modified by Vrabel is capable of being positioned “under” the second filter via the user orienting themselves such that the second end of 130 is under the 128, by modifying the attachment of 112 of Vrabel to the belt of Volmer to achieve the claimed configuration, or by the user changing the orientation of 112 while holding 112 which is disclosed by Vrabel to be portable to accommodate desires of the user (see Vrabel [col 6 ln 56-60])).
In regards to claim 9, Volmer as now modified by Vrabel discloses the invention as discussed above.
Volmer further discloses wherein the fan system (206) further comprises a fan (210; see [0038]; see figure 2) and a fan control circuit (220; see [0040]; see figure 2), the fan control circuit (220) operatively connected to an adjustable speed control (signal technology; see [0041]) for regulating the incoming air flow produced by the fan (210; see [0041] in reference 220 being connected to signal technology of the fan motor in order to control the power consumption of the fan motor; a power consumption of the fan motor directly correlates to a speed of the fan (more power results in more speed of the fan and more air flow, similarly: less power, less speed, less airflow)).
In regards to claim 10, Volmer as now modified by Vrabel discloses the invention as discussed above.
Volmer as now modified by Vrabel does not explicitly disclose wherein the level of pressure inside the head gear is less than 2 atm.
However, Volmer teaches that there is intended to be an overpressure within the headgear (see [0008] and [0051]) and that volumetric flow of air into the head gear is capable of being adjusted based on the head gear to be utilized, and that the volume flow to be provided may be entered , for example, manually and/or configured automatically via a code (e.g., scanned pins in the blower-side connection piece 116, which code the type of the headpiece) and/or regulated by means of pressure sensing (see [0035]). Thus, for full clarity it is obvious that the level of overpressure within the head gear may be manually set, or configured automatically to be less than 2atm as claimed
Therefore, 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 level of overpressure within the head gear of Volmer as now modified by Vrabel by manually setting, or configuring automatically the level of overpressure to be less than 2atm as taught by Volmer in order to have provided an improved personal protective system with an overpressure which ensured the protective system would function as intended to prevent harmful substances from entering the suit (see [0008]) and would prevent damage to the suit and/or user by excess amounts of overpressure which may cause ruptures in the suit or the user’s eardrums.
In regards to claim 11, Volmer as now modified by Vrabel discloses the invention as discussed above.
Volmer as now modified by Vrabel does not disclose wherein the head gear further comprises a fastener for attachment to the user.
However, Vrabel further teaches wherein the head gear (104) further comprises a fastener (30; see [Col 4 ln 1-10]; see figure 1) configured to attach the head gear (104) to the user (see [Col 4 ln 1-10]) for the purpose of adjusting the hood to a variety of sizes of heads (see [Col 4 ln 1-10]).
Therefore 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 head gear as disclosed by Volmer as now modified by Vrabel and to have included fastener configured to attach the head gear to the user as further taught by Vrabel in order to have provided an improved head gear which is capable of adjusting the hood to a variety of sizes of heads (see [Col 4 ln 1-10]).
In regards to claim 12, Volmer as now modified by Vrabel discloses the invention as discussed above.
Volmer as now modified Vrabel does not explicitly disclose the first filter comprises a minimum collection efficiency of 99.97 percent.
However, Vrabel further teaches the filter (118) comprises a minimum collection efficiency of 99.97 percent (see [Col 4 ln 45-50]) for the purpose of filtering 99.97% of harmful particles from the air taken in by the fan (see [Col 4 ln 45-50]).
Therefore 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 first filter as disclosed by Volmer as now modified by Vrabel to be the filter which has a collection efficiency of 99.97% as further taught by Vrabel in order to have provided an improved first filter that would add the benefit of filtering 99.97% of harmful particles from the air taken in by the fan (see [Col 4 ln 45-50]).
In regards to claim 16, Volmer discloses A personal protective system (100; see [0034]; see figure 1), comprising:
a hood (104; see [0051]; see figure 1) shaped and configured to be worn over a head of a user (see figure 2), wherein the hood (104) comprises an inlet (120; see [0039]; see figure 2) for receiving clean air (see [0007]) and an outlet (216; see [0039]; see figure 2) for releasing exhaled air by the user (216 being an “exhalation” part, releases exhaled air by the user);
a waist band (30; see [0034]; see figure 1) comprising an air supply unit (102; see [0034]; see figure 2) removably attached thereto (see [0034]), wherein the air supply unit (102) comprises a fan (210; see [0038]; see figure 2) operatively connected to a first filter (204; see [0037]; see figure 2);
an inlet tube (106; see [0034]; see figure 2) having a first end (118; see [0035]; see figure 2) operatively connected to the inlet (120) of the hood (104; see figure 2) and a second end (116; see [0035]; see figure 2) operatively connected to the fan (210; see [0034]; see figure 2);
wherein the fan (210) is configured to draw air through the first filter (204) and into the inlet tube (106), thereby creating a level of overpressure in the hood (104) that is greater than static atmospheric pressure of an environment external to the user (see [0051]).
Volmer does not disclose an exit tube having a first end operatively connected to the outlet of the head gear and a second end operatively connected to a container having a second filter coupled thereto.
However, Vrabel teaches an analogous personal protective system (system as seen in figure 3; see [Col 5 ln 50-67]; see figure 3), comprising: head gear (104; see [Col 5 ln 50-67]; see figure 3) comprising an inlet and outlet of the head gear (104; see figure 3) and inlet tube (120; see [col 6 ln 10-20]); for providing clean air to the user within the head gear (See [abstract]); further comprising an exit tube (130; see [col 6 ln 20-25]; see figure 3) having a first end operatively connected to the outlet of the head gear (104; see figure 3) and a second end operatively connected to a container (112; see [col 6 ln 9-15]; see figure 3; 112 forms a space for receiving stale air and thus is a container) having a second filter (128; see [col 6 ln 20-25]; see figure 2) coupled thereto (see figure 3) for the purpose of providing a means for drawing air from the head gear (see [col 6 ln 20-25]).
Therefore 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 outlet of the head gear as disclosed by Volmer and to have included the exit tube coupled to the outlet of the head gear and container having a second filter coupled thereto as taught by Vrabel in order to have provided an improved personal protective system that would add the benefit of providing a means for drawing air from the head gear (see [col 6 ln 20-25]).
In regards to claim 17, Volmer as now modified by Vrabel discloses the invention as discussed above.
Volmer as now modified by Vrabel does not explicitly disclose wherein the level of overpressure in the hood is less than two times the static atmospheric pressure of the environment external to the user.
However, Volmer teaches that there is intended to be an overpressure within the hood (see [0008] and [0051]) and that volumetric flow of air into the head gear is capable of being adjusted based on the hood to be utilized, and that the volume flow to be provided may be entered, for example, manually and/or configured automatically via a code (e.g., scanned pins in the blower-side connection piece 116, which code the type of the headpiece) and/or regulated by means of pressure sensing (see [0035]). Thus, for full clarity it is obvious that the level of overpressure within the hood may be manually set, or configured automatically to be less than two times the static atmospheric pressure of the environment external to the user as claimed
Therefore, 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 level of overpressure within the head gear of Volmer as now modified by Vrabel by manually setting, or configuring automatically the level of overpressure to be less than two times the static atmospheric pressure of the environment external to the user as taught by Volmer in order to have provided an improved personal protective system with an overpressure which ensured the protective system would function as intended to prevent harmful substances from entering the suit (see [0008]) and would prevent damage to the suit and/or user by excess amounts of overpressure which may cause ruptures in the suit or the user’s eardrums.
In regards to claim 18, Volmer as now modified by Vrabel discloses the invention as discussed above.
Volmer as now modified by Vrabel does not explicitly disclose wherein the hood is formed of a material that is impermeable to air.
However, Vrabel further teaches wherein the hood (104) is formed of a material that is impermeable to air (see [Col 5 ln 65-Col 6 ln 8]) for the purpose of providing a hood which allows for only air received within the hood is the air that is received from the filtered air supply unit (see [Col 5 ln 65-Col 6 ln 8]).
Therefore 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 material of the hood as disclosed by Volmer as now modified by Vrabel by forming the material from a material that is impermeable to air as further taught by Vrabel in order to have provided an improved hood that would add the benefit of allowing the only air received within the hood is the clean air that is received from the filtered air supply unit (see [Col 5 ln 65-Col 6 ln 8]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volmer in view of Walker et al. (US 2011/0265790 A1) (hereinafter Walker).
In regards to claim 6, Volmer discloses the invention as discussed above.
Volmer does not explicitly disclose wherein the head gear is formed of a material selected from vinyl film, acetate, polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, cellophane, or combinations thereof.
However, Walker teaches an analogous personal protective system (10; see [0050]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous head gear (12; see [0050]; see figure 1) wherein the head gear (12) is formed of a material selected from vinyl film, acetate, polypropylene, polystyrene, cellophane, or combinations thereof (see [0104] in reference to the shell may be formed from…knitted substrates coated in PVC (polyvinylchloride being a type of vinyl), this coating is considered to be a film of PVC, and therefore is considered to be a vinyl film)
Therefore 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 material of the head gear as disclosed by Volmer and to have used PVC film (vinyl film) coating knitted substrates for the head gear as taught by Walker in order to have provided an improved head gear that would add the benefit of utilizing materials that are suitable for maintaining sterile environments.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volmer in view of Vrabel as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Teng et al. (US 2020/0297962 A1) (hereinafter Teng).
In regards to claim 13, Volmer as now modified by Vrabel discloses the invention as discussed above.
Volmer further discloses wherein the fan (210) is powered by a rechargeable battery (230; see [0040] in reference to 230 being able to be charged externally (i.e. recharged); see figure 2).
Volmer as now modified by Vrabel does not disclose the battery is a rechargeable battery having at least 2000 mAh.
However, Teng teaches an analogous personal protective system (500; see [0038]; see figure 7) comprising an analogous fan (504; see [0038]; see figure 7); wherein the fan (504) is powered by a rechargeable battery (528; see [0039]; see figure 8); the rechargeable battery (528) having at least 2000 mAh (see [0039]) for the purpose of providing a high capacity for extended use (see [0039]).
Therefore 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 battery as disclosed by Volmer as now modified by Vrabel and to have formed it as a high-capacity battery with 2000mAh as taught by Teng in order to have provided an improved personal protective system that would add the benefit of providing a high capacity for the battery in order to have extended use of the device (see [0039]).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volmer in view of Vrabel as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Stroiazzo-Mougin et al. (US 2021/0219636 A1) (hereinafter Stroiazzo).
In regards to claim 14, Volmer as now modified by Vrabel discloses the invention as discussed above.
Volmer further discloses wherein the head gear (104) comprises a transparent portion (122; see [0035]; see figure 1; the lens of 122 being for the user’s eyes to protect them as they do work within the device is considered to be transparent to allow vison outside of the hood).
Volmer as now modified by Vrabel does not disclose the transparent portion having a fog resistant coating applied thereto.
However, Stroiazzo teaches an analogous personal protective system (100; see [0028]; see figure 1) comprising an analogous transparent portion (110; see [0028]; see figure 1); the transparent portion (110) having a fog resistant coating applied thereto (see [0028]) for the purpose of preventing the build-up of fog on the transparent cover (see [0028]).
Therefore 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 transparent portion as disclosed by Volmer as now modified by Hilton and Teng by including a fog resistant coating applied to the transparent portion as taught by Stroiazzo in order to have provided an improved transparent portion that would prevent the build-up of fog on the transparent cover (see [0028]).
In regards to claim 15, Volmer as now modified by Vrabel, and Stroiazzo discloses the invention as discussed above.
Volmer further discloses wherein the transparent portion (122) comprises goggles, a face shield, a visor, or any combination thereof (see [0035]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at 571-270-3076. 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.
/DANIEL A MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786