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 Requirement for Information under 37 CFR 1.105
Applicant states that the prototype of the SAVEDTM mask publicly disclosed at the Internation Air Transport Association’s Safety and Flight Ops Show on April 17-19 was “an unconfirmed version” and that “applicant is unable to verify the details of the mask” and “unable to determine whether prototypes of the SAVEDTM system that included specification limitations of claims 1-23 were demonstrated publicly before April 27, 2021,” and thus cannot identify any “specific improvements”/differences between the publicly disclosed mask and the instantly claimed device. While Applicant does affirm that the image of the SAVEDTM mask on the ODG website from January 2019 “appears to be the same as that on the previously submitted Business Wire reference” dated April 12, 2018, Applicant states “Applicant does not concede that the website[s] are prior art” because “Applicant cannot verify that the content on the present web archive sites is an accurate representation…as of the web archive’s stated archival date” because the archived versions “clearly indicate that the SAVEDTM system was still in development at the time.”
Regarding the availability of the websites as prior art, the Examiner notes that, per MPEP 2128.II.E., “publications obtained via the Wayback Machine® are prima facie deemed to be publicly accessible at the date and time provided in the time stamp.” The burden shifts to the applicant should they wish to challenge the authenticity, reliability or accessibility of such information, and no objective evidence has been provided to this end. Moreover, with regards to “still in development,” this could indicate a need for software updates without any changes to the mask structure/hardware. The Examiner further presents a writeup from Wearable Technologies dated June 25, 2018 (see attached), which states that ODG “demonstrated a working model of the mask called SAVED” at the 2018 Augmented World Expo, and screenshots (see attached) demonstrating the operation of the vertical adjustment and various views of a SAVEDTM mask that looks identical to that of the instant disclosure/the previous ODG website/Wearable Technologies article, which were screenshotted by the Examiner on 7/31/2025 (before the 1.105 request) from a YouTube video with 1,117 views posted by Klatt Works, Inc. and dated Sep 16, 2020, which has since been removed from YouTube. Since Applicant’s response does not provide any objective evidence that the publicly disclosed prototypes of the SAVEDTM mask did not contain the subject matter recited in the instant claims, and the publicly disclosed masks appear to be identical to the instantly disclosed mask in both appearance and optical/vertical adjustment capability, the Examiner assumes that the publicly disclosed prototypes of the SAVEDTM mask contained the instantly claimed limitations absent objective evidence to the contrary.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, i.e. claims 5-15, and Species A in the reply filed on 4/23/2025 is acknowledged [Note: no claims directed to Species A are currently included in combination with claims directed to the invention of Group II].
Claims 1-4 and 16-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/23/2025.
Drawings
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 one or more light sources (claims 7, 13-14) and the holes of claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, line 1 should read “optics further comprise
Claim 15, line 1 should read “holes configured to serve" in order to make it clearer that method steps are not being improperly recited in an apparatus claim
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 7, 13 and 14 recite light source(s) and LCOS displays, but as best understood from the specification as originally filed, e.g. Fig. 6 and paras [56-58], the light sources (i.e. within the projectors) are LCOS displays, with the reflector/polarizer 602 between the projector/display 506/”light source” and either a lens (604) or a combiner (606) but not between the projector/display 506 and other (undisclosed/unlabeled) “light sources”. Therefore, claims 7, 13 and 14 contain subject matter not supported by the body of the disclosure as originally filed.
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 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5 (and thus its dependent claims), it is unclear what is the scope of “a built-in respirator.” What is to be considered a respirator in this context? A respirator mask? Demand valve(s)? Pressurized gas source, e.g. a blower? And does “built-in” require an integral/permanent connection, or just intentional inclusion? For purposes of examination, an internal mask within a full-face mask for delivering respiratory gases directly to a wearer’s mouth and/or nose will be considered the minimum to meet the instant limitation of a “built-in respirator”.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear in the claim whether the “fasteners” and “thermal energy” in line 4 are the same as those of claim 6/lines 2-3 or different. As best understood, they are the same, such that claim 7, line 4 will be considered to read “the fasteners” and “the thermal energy”.
Regarding claim 15, the holes are said to serve as alignment features…for aligning what? And as venting paths…for what and to/from where? The specification as originally filed does not include a label or any further description for holes as claimed, such that the nature of the claimed holes cannot be determined, rendering claim 15 indefinite because the specification fails to provide clarity/answers to the questions above, which are necessary for understanding the claimed subject matter.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention.
The SAVEDTM mask publicly available before 4/27/2021, as demonstrated the 2018 Business Wire article submitted by Applicant (see NPL filed 4/27/2022), the ODG and Klatt Works websites submitted by Applicant (see NPL filed 8/14/2025), the 2018 Wearable Technologies article (see attached) and the 2020 YouTube video demonstrating SAVEDTM mask functionality (see attached), is assumed to be the same as the instantly disclosed/claimed mask and thus anticipates claims 5-15, absent objective evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vettese et al. (US 2020/0366872 A1; hereinafter “Vettese”).
Regarding claim 5, Vettese discloses a device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a full-face mask (mask 90) configured, when in use, to seal against a user's face to form a mask cavity (Fig. 1; paras [0002], [0015-17], [0050]), the mask comprising a built-in respirator (visible in Fig. 1) and a transparent face shield (protective visor 91) (Fig. 1); and
visual display system (display device 3) placed inside the mask cavity (Figs. 1 and 4a-d; paras [0074-75], [0078], [0101-104]), the visual display system comprising display optics and electronic circuitry held in a chassis (display body 32) (Fig. 7; paras [0046], [0052], [0072]), the chassis suspended from a mount (comprising fixing element 31) secured to the face shield (Figs. 1 and 4a-d; paras [0074-75], [0078], [0101-104]).
Regarding claim 12, Vettese discloses the device of claim 5, wherein the respirator is connected to an oxygen or purified-air supply hose (Fig. 1, where the depicted hose is fully capable of delivering oxygen or purified-air and thus comprehends an oxygen or purified-air supply hose).
Claim(s) 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (WO 2022/141156 A1; hereinafter “Hu”).
Regarding claim 5, Hu discloses a device (breathing apparatus 1) (Fig. 1) comprising:
a full-face mask (facepiece 10) configured, when in use, to seal against a user's face to form a mask cavity (Fig. 3; para [0052]), the mask comprising a built-in respirator (comprising oronasal mask 180 and/or when demand valve 40 is attached, which is “built into” the system) (para [0049]) and a transparent face shield (lens 120) (Figs. 2-3; para [0053]); and
visual display system (augmented reality optical module 150) placed inside the mask cavity (Figs. 2-3; para [0054]), the visual display system comprising display optics and electronic circuitry held in a chassis (interface 154) (Figs. 2-3; para [0054]), the chassis suspended from a mount (mounting bracket 156) secured (indirectly, via bezel 110) to the face shield (Figs. 2-3; paras [0053-54]).
Regarding claim 12, Hu discloses the device of claim 5, wherein the respirator is connected to an oxygen or purified-air supply hose (pressure tube 60) (Fig. 1; para [00048]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vettese OR Hu in view of Kim (CN 209086558 U; hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 8, Vettese OR Hu discloses the device of claim 5, but Vettese OR Hu is silent regarding wherein the chassis is suspended from and vertically movable relative to the mount via a drive screw. However, Kim teaches that it was known in the art of head-mounted AR/VR devices before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the chassis (VR glasses 2) (Fig. 1) is suspended from and vertically movable relative to a mount (comprising groove 12) via a drive screw (adjusting screw rod 121) (Fig. 1; abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vettese OR Hu to include wherein the chassis is suspended from and vertically movable relative to the mount via a drive screw as taught by Kim, in order to provide the predictable result of a simple, well-known means for providing vertical adjustment of the display system to ensure that the display is properly vertically aligned with regards to the user’s eyes.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Vettese in view of Kim OR Hu in view of Kim teaches the device of claim 8, but modified Vettese OR modified Hu is silent regarding wherein the drive screw comprises four or more threads, or wherein the drive screw comprises eight threads. However, optimization of ranges of parameters within prior art ranges or through routine experimentation is not sufficient to patentably distinguish the invention over the prior art. MPEP § 2144.05. Determining the desired number of threads for a threaded adjustment means was well within the skill of an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention through routine optimization, and arriving within the instant ranges would have been obvious in order to predictably provide for a desired degree of vertical translation, where more and/or more widely spaced threads would predictably provide for a greater degree and/or speed of translation and thus accommodation of a wider range of facial topographies and ease of use, while fewer and/or more narrowly spaced threads would accommodate a smaller mask space/range of movement and/or allow for more granular adjustment.
Claim(s) 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vettese in Kim OR Hu in view of Kim as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 203029472 U; hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 9, Vettese in view of Kim OR Hu in view of Kim teaches the device of claim 8, wherein Kim further teaches/suggests wherein the drive screw engages with a nut (flange 120) (Fig. 1; abstract) in order to predictably provide for the vertical adjustment functionality taught above regarding claim 8, but modified Vettese OR modified Hu is silent regarding wherein the nut is made from a self-lubricating material. However, it has been held to be within the general skill of one in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, see MPEP 2144.07, and Wang teaches/suggests that it was known in the art of vertically-screw-adjustable vision devices in face masks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the screw engages with a nut (nut 5) (Fig. 3) made from a self-lubricating material (nylon) (para [0017]), wherein it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Vettese OR modified Hu to include wherein the nut is made from a self-lubricating material as taught by Wang, in order to utilize a common, light weight and high strength material to predictably provide easy sourcing, reduced weight and/or durability/robustness of the adjustment mechanism elements (Wang paras [0004-8]), including the nut, as well as to ensure the ability of nut to slide smoothly with regards to the drive screw for seamless operation.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vettese OR Hu in view of Haddick et al. (US 10,062,182 B2; hereinafter “Haddick”) and Geng et al. (US 2020/0371389 A1).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Vettese OR Hu discloses the device of claim 5, but Vettese OR Hu is silent regarding explicit internal optic components, such that Vettese OR Hu is silent regarding wherein the display optics include light sources, liquid-crystal-on-silicon (LCOS) displays, partial reflectors, and combiners configured to combine light received through the face shield with an image from the LCOS displays along optical axes aligned, when in use, with the user's eyes, as well as stretched-film reflective polarizers in a path between the light sources and the LCOS displays. However, Haddick teaches that it was known in the AR/HUD art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for AR/HUD display optics (e.g. the upper optics of Fig. 83 in view of lower optics as shown in e.g. Fig. 79a, for each eye) (paras [385-393]) to include light sources (providing light 7920), liquid-crystal-on-silicon (LCOS) displays (image source 7935) (image source 7935 is an LCOS, para [393]), partial reflectors (partially reflecting layer 8330), and combiners (combiner 793) configured to combine light received through the face shield with an image from the LCOS displays along optical axes aligned, when in use, with the user's eyes (e.g. Fig. 79a; para [377]), as well as reflective polarizers (polarizer films 8331 and/or 8332) in a path between the light sources and the LCOS displays (Fig. 83; para [383]), wherein it has been held to be within the general skill of one in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, see MPEP 2144.07, and Geng teaches that it was known in the AR/HUD art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for reflective polarizers for use with LCOS displays to be specifically stretched-film reflective polarizers (Fig. 4; paras [0079-82]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the display optics of Vettese OR Hu to include light sources, liquid-crystal-on-silicon (LCOS) displays, partial reflectors, and combiners configured to combine light received through the face shield with an image from the LCOS displays along optical axes aligned, when in use, with the user's eyes, as well as stretched-film reflective polarizers in a path between the light sources and the LCOS displays as taught by Haddick and Geng, in order to utilize known HUD/AR elements and materials to provide the predictable results of aligned images and improved image quality due to reduced scattering and excess light (Haddick para [384]), as well as to predictably provide a high resolution, compact-size and/or light weight device (Geng para [0004]).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vettese OR Hu in view of Ebersole, Jr. et al. (US 2003/0117342 A1; hereinafter “Ebersole”) and Durner et al. (US 2008/0266669 A1; hereinafter “Durner”).
Regarding claim 15, Vettese OR Hu discloses the device of claim 5, but Vettese OR Hu is silent regarding wherein the chassis comprises holes serving as alignment features during assembly of the device and as venting paths during use of the device. However, Durner teaches that it was known in the electronic googles art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the chassis comprises holes (venting openings 38) (Fig. 2) serving as alignment features during assembly of the device (the venting openings are on the top and thus serve to indicate the top of the device to allow for alignment with other upper elements) and as venting paths during use of the device (Fig. 2; para [0074]), and Ebersole teaches that it was known in the art of including AR devices within facemasks before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that AR devices within masks generate substantial heat that should be vented for wearer comfort (para [0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vettese OR Hu to include wherein the chassis comprises holes serving as alignment features during assembly of the device and as venting paths during use of the device as taught by Durner and Ebersole, in order to provide the predictable result of known structure for venting heat generated by the visual display systems of Vettese OR Hu for wearer comfort (Ebersole para [0027]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references regarding AR/VR/HUD devices in masks/helmets, including those suspended from mounts as well as refs that could be used to reject at least claim 5 under 35 USC 102: Miyano et al. (JP 2004-0244745); Juran et al. (US 2018/0304107 A1); Patil et al. (US 2019/0033594 A1); Liu et al. (CN 211882456 U); Slack (US 2002/0053101 A1); Appelt et al. (US 2006/0125623 A1; Fig. 15); Bardel (US 2006/0145003 A1); Mattinson et al. (US 2007/0181129 A1); Kuutti et al. (US 2015/0273248 A1; Fig. 17A-F); Terre et al. (US 2017/0208260 A1; Fig. 14A); Moore et al. (US 2021/0247618 A1); Keith (US 2021/0316167 A1); Fukukawa (US 2023/0048748 A1); Boyer et al. (US 4,600,271); Ellis (US 4,902,116); Kennedy (US 6,714,141 B2); Olstad et al. (US 7,038,639 B1). Additional references regarding screw height adjusters for head-mounted AR/VR/vision devices: Pu et al. (CN 101773702 A1); Huang et al. (CN 107678175 A); Du (CN 212520895 U). Reference regarding heat dissipation arrangements for mask-mounted AR/VR devices: Lvovskiy et al. (WO 2020/163057 A1). Additional reference regarding the use of light sources, LCOS displays and reflective polarizers in AR/HUD devices: Aastuen et al. (US 2022/0004015 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHRYN E DITMER whose telephone number is (571)270-5178. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-4:30p, F 7:30a-11:30a 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, Brandy Lee can be reached at 571-270-7410. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHRYN E DITMER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785