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 with the written response received on November 4, 2025 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 As directed by the amendment, claims 29 and 42 have been amended; claims 31, 34-35, and 38-41 are withdrawn from further consideration; and claim 30 has been cancelled.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Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed January 1, 2026, are hereby withdrawn:
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b);
Claim rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103.
Claim Objections
Claims 29 and 42 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 29 should recite, “a first pair of press stud components, each press stud component of the first pair of press stud components comprising either a male or a female press stud component, [[each]] a first press stud component of the first pair of press stud components being disposed in a first one of the upper corner regions, and a second press stud component of the first pair of press stud components being disposed in a second one of the upper corner regions; wherein each press stud component of the first pair of press stud components is configured to mate with a complementary press stud component on the cap or headband”;
Claim 29 should recite, “wherein at least one stop component is disposed at least partially below a straight line connecting [[the]] a center[[s]] of each of the first and second [[the]] press stud components
Claim 42 should recite, “wherein each press stud component of the first pair of press stud components, in engagement with [[its]] the complementary component on the cap or headband, respectively, defines a rotational hinge axis permitting the visor to pivot between a lowered working position and a raised stowed position.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29, 32-33, 36-37, and 42 are allowable.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowable subject matter: The claims are allowable over the prior art of record as none of them, alone or in combination, a visor with a continuous panel, a male or female press stud in each of the upper corners regions of the panel, and a stop component that is disposed at least partially below a straight line connecting the centers of the press stud components. Modifying the prior art to have the claimed structure would be hindsight reconstruction based on Applicant’s own disclosure, therefore the claims are allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
The restriction requirement among Groups I-III and Species A-G , as set forth in the Office action mailed on May 4, 2023, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement may be withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Claims 31, 34, and 38, directed to different species may no longer be withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. However, Examiner notes these claims need to be carefully reviewed for 35 USC 112(b) issues. Specifically. claim 38 is indefinite and needs to be amended (it is unclear if claim 38 is referring to the side edges and upper corner regions of the panel that were previously recited or if the side and upper region of the visor are different structures). However, claims 35 and 39-41, directed to a different species and non-elected inventions remain withdrawn from consideration because they do not all require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Examiner respectfully requests claims 35 and 39-41 be cancelled.
In view of the above noted possible withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 4, 2016, with respect to the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections of claims 29, 32-33, 36-37, and 42 have been considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections of claims 29, 32-33, 36-37, and 42 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights