DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 11/12/2025 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-4, 7-19, and 21 remain pending in the current application. The amendments have overcome the 112b rejections previously set forth in the prior office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 7, 9, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moti (4,286,170) in view of Smith et al. (5,500,954).
Regarding claim 1, Moti discloses a face shield assembly (protective face mask assembly, Abstract and Figure 1), comprising: a holder (chest shield 14, Figure 1) adapted to be worn on the body of a wearer (chest shield 14 worn on chest and neck region of the user, Figure 1), said holder having an attachment portion (chest shield 14 comprises a portion containing fasteners 28 wherein the fasteners 28 are used to attach to the face shield 12, Figures 1-4 and Col. 3 lines 57-60); and a separate support portion (chest shield 14 also comprises two shoulder straps 32 suitable to rest upon the shoulders of the user, Figure 4 and Col. 3 lines 62-64) and a shield (face mask shield 12, Figures 1-4) removably connected to the attachment portion of said holder (shield 12 is removably connected to chest shield 14, Col. 3 lines 45-50), said shield being formed of a transparent material (face shield 12 comprises a clear transparent body portion 18, Figure 1 and Col. 3 lines 41-42) and is sized to extend from below the wearer's chin to a location above the nostrils of the wearer (see face shield 12 extending from below the wearer’s chin to a location above the nostrils of the wearer, Figure 1) wherein the support portion has a pair of flexible extensions (shoulder straps 32, Figure 1; shoulder straps may be flexible, Col. 2 lines 21-23) that curve toward one another at a location distal from the shield so as to provide a gap where ends of the flexible extensions are opposed to one another (see portions of shoulder straps 32 curving towards one another such that a gap is formed between the two distal ends of each strap 32, Figure 4), the gap being narrower than a neck of the user and the flexible extensions being spreadable to widen a space between the ends of the flexible extensions sufficient for donning or doffing the face shield assembly when a spreading force is released (as the straps 32 that form the gap are made of a flexible material, Col. 2 lines 21-23, the distal ends of the straps 32 are fully capable of being positioned in a way such that the gap is narrower than the neck of a user, as well as being spreadable in order to widen the gap; see also annotated Figure 4 showing the gap formed between the ends of straps 32 being narrower than the space in which the user’s neck is inserted within).
PNG
media_image1.png
537
349
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 of Moti
Although Moti teaches a space formed between the ends of the flexible extensions fully capable of having a spreading force applied such that the space is sufficient for donning or doffing the face shield assembly (as the straps 32 that form the gap are made of a flexible material, Col. 2 lines 21-23, the distal ends of the straps 32 are fully capable of being positioned in a way such that the gap is narrower than the neck of a user, as well as being spreadable in order to widen the gap; see also annotated Figure 4 showing the gap formed between the ends of straps 32 being narrower than the space in which the user’s neck is inserted within), Moti doesn’t explicitly state that the ends of the flexible extensions when at a rest condition meet or nearly meet when a spreading force is released.
However, Smith teaches a face shield assembly (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising a face shield (shield 10, Figure 1) and a pair of flexible extensions that nearly meet when at a rest condition (see pair of flexible extensions that nearly meet and are secured via an adjustable strap 11, Figure 1 and Abstract) when a spread force is released (adjustable strap 11 is made of an adjustable hook and loop and material and contributes to the ease of donning and doffing of the safety shield, the unfastening of the strap 11 is not necessary for the removal of the shield, therefore the strap made my stretched to allow the user to remove the shield or place it on their neck, and return back to its original shape when the spreading force is released, Col. 5 lines 25-32 and Figures 5, 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of invention to modify Moti’s face shield assembly by having the flexible extensions meet or nearly meet when at a rest condition, and return to such a condition when the spreading force is released, as taught by Smith, as providing such a securement feature allows for quick removal of the shield when necessary (Col. 5 lines 28-30 of Smith).
Regarding claim 7, Moti further discloses wherein the shield is formed for a transparent polymeric material (face shield 12 comprises a clear transparent body portion 18, Figure 1 and Col. 3 lines 41-42; face shield 12 may be made of a polyester resin, therefore formed of a transparent polymeric material, Col. 4 lines 14-17).
Regarding claim 9, Moti further discloses wherein the shield has a semi- cylindrical shape when attached to the holder (face shield 12 is semi-cylindrical when attached to chest shield 14, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Moti further discloses the attachment portion has a curved shape in conformance with a curved outer surface of the shield (see curved portion of chest shield 14 comprising the attaching fasteners 28, to therefore conform with the curved surface of the face shield 12, Figures 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 12, Moti further discloses wherein the curved outer surface of the shield is maintained by the attachment portion (the curved outer bottom surface of shield 12 is maintained by the chest shield 14 via the fasteners 28, Figure 2 and Col. 3 lines 46-49).
Claim(s) 3-4, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moti (4,286,170) in view of Smith et al. (5,500,954) and in further view of Stackhouse et al. (4,986,282).
Regarding claim 3, Moti in view of Smith teach a face shield assembly as set forth in claim 1, however is silent wherein the attachment portion is pivotally connected to the support portion.
However, Stackhouse teaches a face shield assembly (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising a support portion (support frame, Figure 2) and an attachment portion (visor portion 45, Figure 2) wherein the attachment portion is pivotally connected to the support portion (visor portion 45 is pivotally connected with the support frame 13 via the knob 47, Figure 2; “pivotally attached”, Col. 3 lines 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of invention to modify Moti’s face shield assembly by replacing the attachment means of the chest shield 14 and face shield 12 with a pivotally connection means, as taught by Stackhouse, as providing a pivotable connection would allow the user to quickly position the shield away from the user’s face while not in use or not required.
Regarding claim 4, Moti further teaches wherein the support portion is removably connected to the attachment portion (shield 12 is removably connected to chest shield 14, Col. 3 lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 10, Moti teaches a face shield assembly as set forth in claim 9, however is silent wherein the shield is narrower at its bottom and wider at its top.
However, Stackhouse teaches a face shield assembly (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising a transparent face shield (shield 15, Figure 1) wherein the shield is narrower at its bottom and wider at its top such that is continuously diverges from its bottom to its top (full face shield 15 is contoured to be wider at its upper portion 51 than at its lower portion 53, Figure 1 and Col. 3 lines 58-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Moti’s face shield to be narrower at its bottom and wider at its top, as taught by Stackhouse, as providing more coverage towards the top of the face shield can provide better protection of the eye’s while the face shield is in use.
Regarding claim 13, Moti teaches a face shield assembly as set forth in claim 1, however is silent wherein the shield has a configuration that continuously diverges from its bottom to its top.
However, Stackhouse teaches a face shield assembly (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising a transparent face shield (shield 15, Figure 1) wherein the shield is narrower at its bottom and wider at its top such that is continuously diverges from its bottom to its top (full face shield 15 is contoured to be wider at its upper portion 51 than at its lower portion 53, Figure 1 and Col. 3 lines 58-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Moti’s face shield to be narrower at its bottom and wider at its top, as taught by Stackhouse, as providing more coverage towards the top of the face shield can provide better protection of the eye’s while the face shield is in use.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Moti (4,286,170) in view of Smith et al. (5,500,954) and in further view of Czajka et al. (US 2018/0132550 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Moti in view of Smith teach a face shield assembly as set forth in claim 7, however Moti doesn’t explicitly state wherein the polymeric material comprises PET.
However, Czakja teaches a full-face shield assembly (Abstract and Figure 20) wherein the shield is comprised of a polymeric material such as PET (visor shield 2002 may include PET materials, Paragraph 0111).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of invention to modify Moti’s face shield assembly by having the transparent shield be made from a polymeric material such as PET, as using a material such as PET would provide a cost-effective means of providing a transparent face shield.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moti (4,286,170) in view of Smith et al. (5,500,954) and in further view of Huh (US 2018/0161208 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Moti in view of Smith teach a face shield assembly as set forth in claim 1, and although Moti teaches a plurality of posts on the attachment portion (fasteners 28, Figures 1-4) to connect with the face shield 12 via a snap-like connection (Col. 3 lines 16-18), it is not explicitly stated or shown that the attachment portion has at least one post received in an aperture in the shield to connect the shield to the attachment portion.
However, Huh teaches a face shield assembly (Abstract and Figure 2) comprising a transparent full-face shield (transparent film sheet 10, Figure 1) and an attachment portion (support brim 120, Figure 2), wherein the attachment portion has at least one post (fixing protrusions 20, Figure 3) received in an aperture in the shield to connect the shield to the attachment portion (sheet 10 is provided with a plurality of fixing holes 12 in which the fixing protrusions of the support brim 120 are received, to thereby fix the sheet 10 with the support brim 120, Paragraph 0035 and Figures 1, 3 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of invention to modify Moti’s face shield assembly by providing the attachment portion with at least one post to be received in an aperture in the shield, as taught by Huh, as providing such a configuration would provide an alternative means of attachment between the attachment portion and the face shield that may offer a more secure connection between the face shield and the attachment portion via posts and apertures, rather than the snap-like configuration described in Moti.
Claim(s) 15-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moti (4,286,170) in view of Stackhouse et al. (4,986,282) and in further view of Allen (WO 96/34658).
Regarding claim 15, Moti teaches a face shield assembly (Abstract and Figure 1), comprising: a holder adapted to be worn on the body of a wearer (chest shield 14 worn on chest and neck region of the user, Figure 1), said holder having a support portion (chest shield 14 comprises two shoulder straps 32 suitable to rest upon the shoulders of the user, Figure 4 and Col. 3 lines 62-64) and a separate attachment portion (chest shield 14 comprises a portion containing fasteners 28 wherein the fasteners 28 are used to attach to the face shield 12, Figures 1-4 and Col. 3 lines 57-60) connected to the support portion (both the straps 32 and the portion of chest shield 14 comprising the fasteners 28 are connected to one another, Figure 4); the support portion of the holder defining an opening through which the wearer's neck is received (see circular opening formed by straps 32 in which the user’s neck is inserted, Figures 1 and 4); a shield (shield 12, Figures 1-4) removably connected to the attachment portion of said holder (shield 12 is removably connected to chest shield 14, Col. 3 lines 45-50) said shield being formed of a transparent material (face shield 12 comprises a clear transparent body portion 18, Figure 1 and Col. 3 lines 41-42), and the shield having a curved configuration around a generally vertical axis (see curved cylindrical shape of shield 12, Figure 1).
However, Moti is silent wherein the face shield further being narrower at its bottom and wider at its top, such that a width of the shield diverges away from the attachment portion of the holder such that a top portion of the shield is wider than a bottom portion of the shield and wherein the attachment portion has a plurality of posts received in corresponding apertures in the shield to connect the shield to the attachment portion, the posts extending completely through the apertures in the shield.
However, Stackhouse teaches a face shield assembly (Abstract and Figure 1) comprising a transparent face shield (shield 15, Figure 1) wherein the shield is narrower at its bottom and wider at its top (full face shield 15 is contoured to be wider at its upper portion 51 than at its lower portion 53, Figure 1 and Col. 3 lines 58-60) such that a width of the shield diverges away from the attachment portion of the holder such that a top portion of the shield is wider than a bottom portion of the shield (see upper portion 51 of shield 15 connected to attachment holder 45 wider than the bottom portion 53 of the shield 15, Figure 1 and Col. 3 lines 58-60). The Examiner notes this general shape of Stackhouse’s shield is consistent with the shape of Applicant’s shield shown in Figure 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Moti’s face shield to be narrower at its bottom and wider at its top, as taught by Stackhouse, as providing more coverage towards the top of the face shield can provide better protection of the eye’s while the face shield is in use.
Regarding the attachment portion having a plurality of posts extending completely through respective apertures in the shield, Allen teaches an eye shield for a respiratory mask (Abstract and Figure 3) comprising a transparent shield (transparent shield portion 22, Figure 3 and Abstract) comprising a plurality of apertures in the shield (openings 25 on the lens sheet 24, Figure 7), and an attachment portion with a plurality of corresponding posts to connect to the shield (frame 23 comprises a plurality of fixing heads or posts 26, openings 25 of the shield correspond to the fixing head posts 26 on the sides 23b of the frame 23, Figures 7-8 and Page 6, second paragraph), such that the posts extend completely through the apertures in the shield (see fixing heads 36 extending completely through the corresponding opens 25 of the lens sheet 24, Figures 6 and 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Moti’s face shield assembly by replacing Moti’s snap-like connecting between the attachment portion and the shield with a plurality of posts and corresponding apertures in the shield, as taught by Allen, as providing such components provides an alternatives means of connection between the attachment portion and the shield that may aide in providing a more secure and tight fit between the two components.
Regarding claim 16, Moti in view of Stackhouse and Allen teach the face shield assembly as set forth in claim 15, with Stackhouse further teaching an attachment portion (visor portion 45, Figure 2) pivotally connected to a support portion (visor portion 45 is pivotally connected with the support frame 13 via the knob 47, Figure 2; “pivotally attached”, Col. 3 lines 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of invention to modify Moti’s face shield assembly by replacing the attachment means of the rim to the strap with a pivotally connection, as taught by Stackhouse, as providing a pivotable connection would allow the user to quickly position the shield away from the user’s face while not in use or not required.
Regarding claim 17, Moti in view of Stackhouse and Allen teach the face shield assembly as set forth in claim 16, with Stackhouse further teaching wherein the attachment portion (visor portion 45, Figure 2) is pivotally connected to the support portion by a hinge (see visor portion 45 pivotally connected to the frame 13 via a detent assembly 46, Figure 3) formed by engagement of the attachment portion with an axle of the support portion (see axle 39 mounted on the post 41 on the arm 43 of the support frame 13 to pivotally connect the attachment portion 45 and support headband 17, Figure 3 and Col. 3 lines 47-50).
Regarding claim 18, Moti in view of Stackhouse and Allen teach the face shield assembly as set forth in claim 16, with Moti further teaching wherein the support portion is removably connected to the attachment portion for donning and doffing the face shield assembly (shield 12 is removably connected to chest shield 14, Col. 3 lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 19, Moti in view of Stackhouse and Allen teach the face shield assembly as set forth in claim 15, with Moti further teaching wherein the support portion has a pair of flexible extensions that curve toward one another at a location distal from the shield (shoulder straps 32, Figure 1; shoulder straps may be flexible, Col. 2 lines 21-23; see portions of shoulder straps 32 curving towards one another such that a gap is formed between the two distal ends of each strap 32, Figure 4).
Regarding claim 21, Moti in view of Stackhouse and Allen teach a face shield assembly as set forth in claim 15, with Allen further teaching wherein the apertures (openings 25, Figure 7) are formed as H-cuts each having deflectable left and right flaps (openings 25 are formed with radially extending slits, therefore forming “H” cuts having deflectable left and right flaps, see Figure 7 and Page 6 lines 15-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Moti’s face shield assembly by having apertures formed as H-cuts with deflectable flaps formed in the shield, as taught by Allen, as providing such slits and/or flaps enable the corresponding posts or fixing heads of the attachment portion to be pushed into the apertures more easily.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH B LEDERER whose telephone number is 571-272-7274. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARAH B LEDERER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/MARGARET M LUARCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785