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 .
This action is in response to the filing on 2/25/2026. Since the previous filing, claims 1, 2, 9, 15, 18, 20, 22, 29, 43, 55, 79 and 94 have been amended, claims 7, 19, 45 and 80-82 have been cancelled and claims 100-105 have been added. Thus, claims 1-2, 9, 15, 18, 20, 22, 29, 43, 55, 79, 94 and 100-105 are pending in the application.
In regards to the previous Claim Objections, Applicant has either argued persuasively or amended to overcome these objections and they are therefore withdrawn.
In regards to the previous 103 Rejections, Applicant has amended to overcome these rejections and they are therefore withdrawn with new rejections entered below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 15, 18, 20, 22, 29 and 100-104 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man (US 2021/0282477) in view of Tredup (US 6374424).
In regards to claim 1, Man discloses a protective shield (face shield 200) comprising a transparent non-spherical dome or shell (sheet 110 may be transparent, paragraph 39) delimiting a hollow interior space for receiving facial and cranial regions of a user's head therein (Fig 1D), said non-spherical dome or shell having a boundary edge thereof that delimits an opening of said hollow interior space through which said facial and cranial regions of said user's head are admitted into said hollow interior space (Fig 1D and Annotated Fig 1A), said opening having an elongated primary dimension measured in one direction thereacross and configured with sufficient length to accommodate a chin-to-crown measurement of the user's head in an inferior-superior anatomical direction, and a shorter secondary dimension measured in a cross-wise direction to said primary dimension and configured with sufficient length to accommodate a narrower width measurement of the user's head in a lateral anatomical direction (Fig 1D and Annotated Fig 1A), a frontal reference plane, a bisecting midplane, the frontal reference plane orthogonal to the bisecting midplane (Annotated Fig 1A).
PNG
media_image1.png
563
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1A
While Man discloses wherein the dome or shell has a lower facial portion arranged to hand downwardly over the facial region of the user’s head, wherein the boundary edge, the opening and the elongated primary dimension are cooperatively configured such that, in a worn position on said user’s head, said elongated primary direction of said opening spans superiorly-inferiorly of said user’s head to a location situated inferiorly of a chin of said user’s head in order to encompass a face, forehead and temples of the user’s head within confines of the shield (Fig 1D), it does not disclose wherein the dome or shell has an upper cranial portion arranged to overlie a top of the user’s head, wherein the boundary edge, the opening and the elongated primary dimension are cooperatively configured such that, in a worn position on said user’s head, said elongated primary dimension of said opening spans superiorly-inferiorly and posteriorly-anteriorly of said user’s head from a location situated superiorly of a crown of said user’s head to a location situated inferiorly of a chin of said user’s head in order to encompass a face, forehead, temples, frontal scalp, mid-scalp and, at least partially, crown, of the user’s head within confines of the shield.
However, Tredup teaches wherein the dome or shell has an upper cranial portion arranged to overlie a top of the user’s head, wherein the boundary edge, the opening and the elongated primary dimension are cooperatively configured such that, in a worn position on said user’s head, said elongated primary dimension of said opening spans superiorly-inferiorly and posteriorly-anteriorly of said user’s head from a location situated superiorly of a crown of said user’s head to a location situated inferiorly of a chin of said user’s head in order to encompass a face, forehead, temples, frontal scalp, mid-scalp and, at least partially, crown, of the user’s head within confines of the shield (Fig 4 and see Annotated Fig 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
444
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 2
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Man wherein the dome or shell has an upper cranial portion arranged to overlie a top of the user’s head, wherein the boundary edge, the opening and the elongated primary dimension are cooperatively configured such that, in a worn position on said user’s head, said elongated primary dimension of said opening spans superiorly-inferiorly and posteriorly-anteriorly of said user’s head from a location situated superiorly of a crown of said user’s head to a location situated inferiorly of a chin of said user’s head in order to encompass a face, forehead, temples, frontal scalp, mid-scalp and, at least partially, crown, of the user’s head within confines of the shield as taught by Tredup as this would provide a full coverage of the user’s face and head.
While the combination does not explicitly teach wherein: top-rear and bottom-front ends of the non-spherical dome or shell reside opposite one another across said elongated primary dimension; a depth of said hollow interior space varies at different locations along the elongated primary dimension, and is characterized by a maximum depth at an intermediate location that is situated between, and spaced from both of, said top-rear and bottom-front ends; at said intermediate location, the boundary edge resides in an inclined plane of obliquely angled orientation to a frontal reference plane occupied by a frontmost extremity of the facial portion, said inclined plane angles divergently upward and rearward from the frontal reference plane, and both the inclined plane and the frontal reference plane lie orthogonally of a bisecting midplane that bisects the dome or shell at a midpoint of the secondary dimension; and said maximum depth of said hollow interior space is measured orthogonally of said inclined plane and along the bisecting midplane, the resultant device as formed by the combination shows wherein: top-rear and bottom-front ends of the non-spherical dome or shell reside opposite one another across said elongated primary dimension; a depth of said hollow interior space varies at different locations along the elongated primary dimension, and is characterized by a maximum depth at an intermediate location that is situated between, and spaced from both of, said top-rear and bottom-front ends; at said intermediate location, the boundary edge resides in an inclined plane of obliquely angled orientation to a frontal reference plane occupied by a frontmost extremity of the facial portion, said inclined plane angles divergently upward and rearward from the frontal reference plane, and both the inclined plane and the frontal reference plane lie orthogonally of a bisecting midplane that bisects the dome or shell at a midpoint of the secondary dimension; and said maximum depth of said hollow interior space is measured orthogonally of said inclined plane and along the bisecting midplane (see Annotated Fig 1D).
PNG
media_image3.png
461
629
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1D
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein: top-rear and bottom-front ends of the non-spherical dome or shell reside opposite one another across said elongated primary dimension; a depth of said hollow interior space varies at different locations along the elongated primary dimension, and is characterized by a maximum depth at an intermediate location that is situated between, and spaced from both of, said top-rear and bottom-front ends; at said intermediate location, the boundary edge resides in an inclined plane of obliquely angled orientation to a frontal reference plane occupied by a frontmost extremity of the facial portion, said inclined plane angles divergently upward and rearward from the frontal reference plane, and both the inclined plane and the frontal reference plane lie orthogonally of a bisecting midplane that bisects the dome or shell at a midpoint of the secondary dimension; and said maximum depth of said hollow interior space is measured orthogonally of said inclined plane and along the bisecting midplane as seen above as this would form a space that comfortably and completely encloses the face of the user.
In regards to claim 2, Man in view of Tredup teaches the device of claim 1 and the combination further teaches wherein said intermediate location resides nearer to the top-rear end of the non-spherical dome or shell than to the bottom-front end thereof (see Annotated Fig 1D).
In regards to claim 9, Man in view of Tredup teaches the device of claim 1 and Man further discloses wherein said non-spherical dome or shell, at a region thereof situated across from the opening, comprises at least one inward forehead protrusion jutting into the interior space of the shield relative to surrounding inner surface areas of said dome or shell, each inward forehead protrusion is coincident with a matching open-topped forehead depression in an outer surface of the shield, and a respective floor of each open-topped forehead depression is an exposed surface lacking any overhead coverage thereof by any part of the shield (head contacting protrusions 112a-c, paragraph 39-40, Fig 1A).
In regards to claim 15, Man in view of Tredup teaches the device of claim 1 and the combination further discloses wherein said non-spherical dome or shell, at a region thereof situated across from the opening, comprises a pair of inward protrusions jutting into the interior space of the shield relative to surrounding inner surface areas of said dome or shell, a pair of depressions in an outer surface of the shield that are of coincidentally matching relationship to the pair of inward protrusions (Man: head contacting protrusions 112a-c, paragraph 39-40, Fig 1A) and an airflow space delimited between said inward protrusions inside of an upright brow ridge that is situated between the pair of depressions (Man: space between head contacting protrusions 112a-c, paragraph 39-40, Fig 1A) and comprise an externally convex profile that imparts a gradually curved transition between the lower facial portion of the dome or shell and the upper cranial portion thereof (see Annotated Fig 1D).
In regards to claim 18, Man in view of Tredup teaches the device of claim 1 and Man further discloses wherein the primary and secondary dimensions of the dome or shell, measured orthogonally of one another in planes parallel to the inclined plane occupied by the opening, are at a maximum at said inclined plane (see Annotated Fig 1A and Annotated Fig 1D).
In regards to claim 20, Man in view of Tredup teaches the device of claim 1 and the combination further teaches wherein the dome or shell comprises a transitional region that joins together the facial and cranial portions and comprises an externally convex curvature imparting a gradually curved transition therebetween (Man: see Annotated Fig 1D; Tredup: see Annotated Fig 2), and in a cross-sectional measuring plane that is either a midplane that bisects the dome or shell at a midpoint of the secondary dimension, or another plane that lies parallel to said midplane, is characterized by a divergent relationship between a linearly profiled segment of the lower facial portion that spans a majority thereof in a downward directionality toward the bottom-front end of the dome or shell and a linearly profiled segment of the upper cranial portion that spans a majority thereof in a rearward direction toward the top-rear end of the of the dome or shell, an a divergence angle measured between said linearly profiled segments of the lower facial portion and the upper cranial portion is at least 90 degrees (Man: see Annotated Fig 1D; Tredup: see Annotated Fig 2).
In regards to claim 22, Man in view of Tredup teaches the device of claim 20 and the combination further teaches wherein divergence is greater than 90-degrees (Man: see Annotated Fig 1D; Tredup: see Annotated Fig 2).
In regards to claim 29, Man in view of Tredup teaches the device of claim 20 and the combination further teaches wherein the device is configures such that, in a worn position on the user's head, the linearly profiled segment of the upper cranial portion is of inclined orientation sloping upwardly toward the boundary edge of the opening (see Annotated Fig 1D).
In regards to claim 100, Man in view of Tredup teaches the device of claim 1 and the combination further teaches wherein the depth of the hollow interior space, relative to the maximum depth at said intermediate location, reduces toward both the top-rear and bottom-front ends of the dome or shell (see Annotated Fig 1D).
In regards to claim 101, Man in view of Tredup teaches the device of claim 1 and the combination further teaches wherein an entirety of the boundary edge resides in said inclined plane (see Annotated Fig 1D).
In regards to claim 102, Man in view of Tredup teaches the device of claim 1 and the combination further teaches wherein said frontmost extremity of the facial region is characterized by linearity in a bisecting midplane that bisects the dome or shell at a midpoint of the secondary dimension (see Annotated Fig 1A and 1D).
In regards to claim 103, Man in view of Tredup teaches the device of claim 1 and the combination further teaches wherein said maximum depth of said hollow interior space is measured from said inclined plane to a transitional region of the dome or shell that joins together the facial and cranial portions thereof (see Annotated Fig 1D).
In regards to claim 104, Man in view of Tredup teaches the device of claim 1 and the combination further teaches wherein said transitional region comprises an externally convex curvature imparting a gradually curved transition between the facial and cranial portions of the dome or shell, which are characterized by greater linearity, in one or more cross-sectional reference planes parallel to the bisecting midplane, than the externally convex curvature of the transitional region (see Annotated Fig 1A and 1D).
Claim(s) 43 and 79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man (US 2021/0282477) in view of Tredup (US 6374424) as applied above and in further view of Baker (US 2021/0298377).
In regards to claim 43, Man in view of Tredup the device of claim 15.
Man does not disclose wherein the upper cranial portion has an airflow channel formed therein in a position and orientation running linearly thereof, said airflow channel having opposing rear and front ends situated respectively distally and proximally of the facial region, among which the front end opens into the airflow pace inside the upright brow ridge.
However, Baker teaches a face mask wherein the upper cranial portion has an airflow channel formed therein in a position and orientation running linearly thereof, said airflow channel having opposing rear and front ends situated respectively distally and proximally of the facial region, among which the front end opens into the airflow pace inside the upright brow ridge (channels 20, paragraph 14, Fig 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Man wherein the upper cranial portion has an airflow channel formed therein in a position and orientation running linearly thereof, said airflow channel having opposing rear and front ends situated respectively distally and proximally of the facial region, among which the front end opens into the airflow pace inside the upright brow ridge as taught by Baker as this would help direct airflow away from the face.
In regards to claim 79, Man teaches Tredup teaches the device of claim 9.
Man does not disclose wherein the upper cranial portion has the one or more support protrusions integrally formed in an underside thereof in coincident relationship with support depressions integrally formed in a topside of the cranial portion, among which the support protrusions jut downwardly from surrounding surface areas of said underside of the cranial portion for resting of said support protrusions against the top of the user's head so as to support said surrounding surface areas in elevated relation over the top of the user's head to enable airflow therebetween, and wherein said support protrusions are spaced laterally apart from one another, are elongated in a front-to-rear directionally in which said cranial portion extends from said facial portion, and said support depressions, at front ends thereof, respectively intersect with said open-topped forehead depressions at open tops thereof.
While Baker does not explicitly teach wherein the upper cranial portion has the one or more support protrusions integrally formed in an underside thereof in coincident relationship with support depressions integrally formed in a topside of the cranial portion, among which the support protrusions jut downwardly from surrounding surface areas of said underside of the cranial portion for resting of said support protrusions against the top of the user's head so as to support said surrounding surface areas in elevated relation over the top of the user's head to enable airflow therebetween, and wherein said support protrusions are spaced laterally apart from one another, are elongated in a front-to-rear directionally in which said cranial portion extends from said facial portion, and said support depressions, at front ends thereof, respectively intersect with said open-topped forehead depressions at open tops thereof, Baker does teach protrusions extending over the cranial portion of the shield (channels 15 and troughs between them, paragraph 14, Fig 1) and including these into the cranial section of the modified Man would not materially alter the function. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Man wherein the upper cranial portion has the one or more support protrusions integrally formed in an underside thereof in coincident relationship with support depressions integrally formed in a topside of the cranial portion, among which the support protrusions jut downwardly from surrounding surface areas of said underside of the cranial portion for resting of said support protrusions against the top of the user's head so as to support said surrounding surface areas in elevated relation over the top of the user's head to enable airflow therebetween, and wherein said support protrusions are spaced laterally apart from one another, are elongated in a front-to-rear directionally in which said cranial portion extends from said facial portion, and said support depressions, at front ends thereof, respectively intersect with said open-topped forehead depressions at open tops thereof as taught by Baker as this would provide good coverage of the user’s face while allowing ventilation and such changes of shape hold not patentable weight without modification of the device operation (MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
Claim(s) 55 and 105 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man (US 2021/0282477) in view of Tredup (US 6374424) as applied above and in further view of Baker (US 2021/0298377) and Jefferis (US 2019/0231005).
In regards to claim 55, Man in view of Tredup teaches the device of claim 1.
Man does not disclose in combination with an attachable garment accessory and a connector therefor, wherein the shell or dome of the shield comprising an out-turned flange projecting from the boundary edge around at least a portion of the opening and configured cooperatively with the connector for selective attachment of the garment accessory to the out-turned flange of the shield.
However, Baker teaches a face mask comprising an out-turned flange projecting from the boundary edge around at least a portion of the opening (perimeter flange 80, paragraph 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Man to have an out-turned flange projecting from the boundary edge around at least a portion of the opening as taught by Baker as this would provide structural stability and integrity (Baker: paragraph 16).
Further, Jefferis teaches a face shield in combination with an attachable garment accessory and a connector therefor (surgical garment 12, paragraph 76-77), and configured cooperatively with the connector for selective attachment of the garment accessory to the out-turned flange of the shield (surgical garment 12 may attach to face shield using protrusion 46, paragraph 91).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Man in combination with an attachable garment accessory and a connector therefor, and configured cooperatively with the connector for selective attachment of the garment accessory to the out-turned flange of the shield as taught by Jefferis as this would provide an extra barrier between the wearer and any potential contaminants (Jefferis: paragraph 76).
In regards to claim 105, Man in view of Tredup, Baker and Jefferis teaches the device of claim 55 and Jefferis further teaches wherein said garment accessory comprises a bib or shroud (paragraph 77, Fig 1).
Claim(s) 94 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Man (US 2021/0282477) in view of Tredup (US 6374424) as applied above and in further view of Kubicek (US 2021/0298386), Miller (US 2015/0237931) and Guney (US 2009/0044808).
In regards to claim 94, Man in view of Tredup teaches the device of claim 1 and Man further discloses in combination with a headband (headband 120), wherein said non-spherical dome or shell, at a region thereof situated across from the opening, comprises a pair of inward protrusions that jut into the interior space of the shield relative to surrounding inner surface areas of said dome or shell (protrusions 112a-112c),
Man does not disclose an airflow space whose width is delimited between said pair of inward protrusions has a widened lower end that coincides with bottom ends of said inward protrusions, and from which said airflow space tapers upwardly to a lesser width than said widened lower end, and foam portions of the headband are attached to terminal ends of inward protrusions to support the protective shield on said headband, and said headband spans a less than full loop, and had an open gap therein between the pair of inward protrusions, whereby the open gap of the headband enlarges an effective size of the airflow space between the inward protrusions to maximize airflow therethrough.
However, Kubicek teaches an airflow space whose width is delimited between said pair of inward protrusions has a widened lower end that coincides with bottom ends of said inward protrusions, and from which said airflow space tapers upwardly to a lesser width than said widened lower end (protrusions 104 taper from base to top, Fig 2 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Man to have an airflow space whose width is delimited between said pair of inward protrusions has a widened lower end that coincides with bottom ends of said inward protrusions, and from which said airflow space tapers upwardly to a lesser width than said widened lower end as taught by Kubicek as this would allow the protrusions to maintain full airflow in accommodation of the bending of the mask.
Further, Miller teaches a face shield having portions of the headband are attached to terminal ends of inward protrusions to support the protective shield on said headband (Fig 2 shows strap 90 attached to shield at terminal end of foam member 80), and said headband spans a less than full loop (Fig 4).
While the combination does not explicitly teach an open gap therein between the pair of inward protrusions, whereby the open gap of the headband enlarges an effective size of the airflow space between the inward protrusions to maximize airflow therethrough, the attachment structure of the strap of Miller applied to the shield of Man would provide a gap in the headband in such location as to avoid crossing the gap between the protrusions (Man: Fig 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Man wherein portions of the headband are attached to terminal ends of inward protrusions to support the protective shield on said headband, and said headband spans a less than full loop, an open gap therein between the pair of inward protrusions, whereby the open gap of the headband enlarges an effective size of the airflow space between the inward protrusions to maximize airflow therethrough as taught by Man and Miller as this would allow a secure and comfortable attachment of the shield to the user without interfering with the ventilation between the protrusions.
Additionally, Guney teaches wherein the headband is foam (straps 853 may be constructed of foam, paragraph 604).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Man wherein the headband is foam as taught by Guney as this construction would increase friction to hold the straps in place (Guney: paragraph 604).
Response to Arguments
In regards to the arguments concerning the amendments made to the claims, these arguments are primarily addressed in the new rejections entered above.
Applicant appears to be arguing against the combination of Man with Tredup by evaluating each reference, and subsequent references, individually instead of evaluating the features of the described combination. For clarity, Examiner has provided a new annotated Fig (see above Rejections) to more fully demonstrate how they are interpreting the combination of elements from the cited references and arriving at the resultant geometry of the new device. Further, Examiner notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2145(IV).
Examiner would also like to note that Applicant’s arguments refer to an embodiment of Man that is not being cited. The figure shown on page 10 of the submitted arguments is a blown up version of Fig 2C of Man. Examiner has not called upon this embodiment in any manner for their rejections and arguments based upon this embodiment are therefore moot.
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 Arielle Wolff whose telephone number is (571)272-8727. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/ARIELLE WOLFF/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785