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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 20, 2024 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on August 20, 2024 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 29 and 42 have been amended; claims 31, 34-35, and 38-41 are withdrawn from further consideration; and claim 30 has been cancelled. Accordingly, claims 29 and 31-42 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 29, 32-33, 36-37, and 42.
Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed February 20, 2024, are hereby withdrawn:
Objections to the drawings;
Objections to the specification;
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 29 and 42 (and claims 32-33 and 36-37 at least for depending from a rejected claim) 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 29 is indefinite as it recites, “A visor for fastening to a cap or a headband using press stud components… wherein the press stud components are a female press stud component and a male press stud component, wherein one of the press stud components is provided in each of the upper corner regions of the panel, respectively, wherein and wherein at least one stop component is provided at least partially below a path connecting the press stud components to one another”. As the claim is drawn only to the visor and the remainder of the preamble is intended used, but then male and female press stud components are claimed, one in each upper corner region, it is unclear if both a female press stud and a male press stud are required by the claim. Each upper corner region (30, 32) only has one half of a completely press stud, the other half being on the cap itself, and it is unclear how both would be required by the claim. Further, it is unclear, in the limitation, if “one of the press stud components” is referring to one or both of the male and/or female press stud components or one of the more generalized “press stud components”. Finally in the last two lines, it is unclear as to what components “the press stud components” are referring to as it could be to one or both of the male and/or female press stud components or one of the more generalized “press stud components” or one or both of the male and/or female press stud components in the upper corner regions or one of the more generalized “press stud components” in the upper corner regions. Examiner has interpreted the claim to mean, and respectfully suggests amending to recite, “A visor for fastening to a cap or a headband using press stud components… a male or female component [[one]] of the press stud components is provided in each of the upper corner regions of the panel, respectively, male or female component of the press stud components provided in each of the upper corner regions to one another”.
Claim 42 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein each of the press stud components provided in each of the upper corner regions is a hinge to rotate the visor relative to the cap or the headband.” It is again unclear if “one of the press stud components” is referring to one or both of the male and/or female press stud components or one of the more generalized “press stud components”. Based on the suggestion above, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to recite, “wherein each of the male or female component of the press stud components provided in each of the upper corner regions is a hinge to rotate the visor relative to the cap or the headband.”
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) 29 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anti-Saliva Splash Anti-Spitting Anti-Fog Anti-Oil Protective Baseball Cap Mask Removable Face Shield (https://www.sunsky-online.com/p/PU463B/Anti-Saliva-Splash-Anti-Spitting-Anti-Fog-Anti-Oil-Protective-Baseball-Cap-Mask-Removable-Face-Shiel.htm?page=5#reviews, hereafter “Splash Shield”).
Regarding claim 29, Splash Shield discloses a visor for fastening to a cap or a headband using press studs (see annotated Fig. 1), the visor comprising a contiguous panel consisting of a shape defined by an upper edge and two side edges, the upper edge and upper portion so the two side edges define two upper corner regions, and lower portion so the two side edges define a bottom edge (see annotated Fig. 2), wherein the press stud components are a female press stud component and a male press stud component (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 1), wherein one of the press stud components is provide in each of the upper corner regions of the panel, respectively (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 1, and understood from each of the figures, each of the two upper corner regions has a female press stud component), wherein at least one stop component (see annotated Fig. 3) is provide at least partially below a path connecting the press stud components together (as seen in annotated Fig. 2, a path can be drawn between the press stud components in the upper regions that is above the stop component).
Regarding claim 42, Splash Shield discloses wherein each of the press stud components provided in each of the upper corner regions (press studs components 17 and 19) is a hinge to rotate the visor relative to the cap or headband (as press stud components can rotate relative to their corresponding components, i.e. a female press stud component can rotate relative to a male press stud component when connected together, the press stud components can be considered a hinge to rotate the visor relative to the cap or headband as seen in Fig. 4).
Examiner notes that italicized limitations in the prior art rejections are functional and do not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead require an ability to so perform and/or function. As the prior art discloses the structure of the visor, there would be a reasonable expectation for the visor to perform such functions, as Examiner has explained after each functional limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Splash Shield as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Lane (US 4766609).
Regarding claims 32-33, Splash Shield discloses all the limitations of claim 29 above but does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one stop component is an elongate stop strip [claim 32], wherein the elongate stop strip is a foam strip [claim 33].
Lane teaches a face shield attached to headgear wherein the at least one stop component (64) is an elongate stop strip (see Figs. 1-2 and col. 4, lines 1-5), wherein the elongate stop strip is a foam strip (col. 4, lines 1-5).
Splash Shield and Lane teach analogous inventions in the field of face shields attached to headgear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the stop component of Splash Shield of an elongate foam strip as taught by Lane in order to further prevent the entrance of fluid between the shield and the brim of the cap.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Splash Shield as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Preising (WO 2006/061007).
Regarding claim 36, Splash Shield discloses all the limitations of claim 29 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein at least one hook and loop fastener component is provided for fastening a textile component using a hook and loop fastener connection.
Preising teaches a face shield wherein at least one hook and loop fastener component (BF, see para. 0022 of the translation) is provided for fastening a textile component using a hook and loop fastener connection (as disclosed in para. 0022 of the translation, BF provides for fastening an additional screen via Velcro and therefore capable of fastening a textile component).
Splash Shield and Preising teach analogous inventions in the field of face shields attached to headgear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add at least one hook and loop component to the visor of Splash Shield as taught by Preising in order to add an addition component “which is attached to the lower end of the protective screen by means of fastening elements” so that “the gap closes between the lower end of the protective screen and the body of the person to be protected” (para. 0020 of translation of Preising).
Examiner notes that italicized limitations in the prior art rejections are functional and do not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead require an ability to so perform and/or function. As the prior art discloses the structure of the visor, there would be a reasonable expectation for the structure(s) to perform such functions, as Examiner has explained after each functional limitation.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Splash Shield as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Bay (US 5555570).
Regarding claim 37, Splash Shield discloses all the limitations of claim 29 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein at least one ventilation slot is provided in an upper region of the visor.
Bay teaches a visor attached to headgear wherein at least one ventilation slot (slots 27, best shown in Fig. 3) is provided in an upper region of the visor (20, as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3, the slots are in an upper region of 20).
Splash Shield and Bay teach analogous inventions in the field of face shields attached to headgear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add ventilation slots to the upper region of the visor of Splash Shield as taught by Bay “for allowing the passage of air through the face shield past the head” (see col. 3, lines 24-26 of Bay).
PNG
media_image1.png
855
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 (Splash Shield)
PNG
media_image2.png
784
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 (Splash Shield)
PNG
media_image3.png
654
539
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 (Splash Shield)
PNG
media_image4.png
748
671
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 (Splash Shield)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 20, 2024, with respect to the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections of claims 29, 32-33, 36-37, and 42 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0673. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached on 571-272-5559. 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.
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732