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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s lack of an Information Disclosure Statement submission.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-16, and 19-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims and specification have overcome the drawing objections, 112(b) rejections, and 101 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/24/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely exclusively on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 10-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 appears to end as an incomplete sentence, which appears to be a typographical error due to the amendment. Claims 2-3, 6, 8, and 10-13 are objected to as depending upon an objected-to base 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.
Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 does not appear to have support in the disclosure for “wherein the face protector is configured to cover a user’s eyes, ears, nose, and the mouth area”. The face mask shield, 100, which appears to refer to the entire device, is stated to fully encapsulate the eyes, nose, mouth, and ears of the user in [0043]. The disclosure appears to chow that at least the combination of the face protector (understood to be reference number 200, shown in fig. 2 as a face shield or visor based on original specification [0056]) and the face mask portion (fig. 2, 102 [0042]) that are the portions of the device which cover the recited portions of the face. Claim 1 recites that the protective mask component comprises a face protector, which appears to be only a portion of the protective face mask. It appears that applicant may intend to mean that the face mask shield device (that is, the combination of components 200 and 102 as shown in fig. 2) is configured to cover the recited portions of the user’s face, rather than just the protective face shield portion of the protective face mask.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiruppathi (US 2010/0300435 A1), hereafter Thiruppathi, in view of Hall et al. (US 2021/0290989 A1), hereafter Hall.
Regarding Claim 1, Thiruppathi discloses a face mask shield device (fig. 1, 10 [0021] first col.), comprising: a protective mask component (fig. 1, face bar shell 6 [0021] first. col.) comprising a detachable respirator filter (fig. 4, debris filter 15 [0021] is removable and replaceable, [0005] second col., end of page) that can be secured adjacent a mouth area of a user (fig. 1, the filter area is adjacent the mouth of the user as worn on the user’s head, fig. 9); and a battery (fig. 8, battery 1 [0021] end of second col.);
a helmet (fig. 1, oxygen helmet 10 [0021] first col.); and
wherein the protective mask component further comprises a face protector (fig. 1, visor 2 [0021] first col.) securable to a peripheral edge of the helmet (fig. 2, right unit attachment 13, left unit attachment 14 [0021] second col.).
Thiruppathi is silent on whether the helmet comprises an absorbent cushioning material removably attached to an inner edge of the helmet, and whether the face protector is secured to the peripheral edge of the helmet using a plurality of hook and loop fasteners.
Hall teaches an absorbent cushioning material (fig. 1, 118 [0114]) removably attached to an inner edge of a helmet (fig. 1, 118 may be removably attached to frame 106 [0114] of head covering device 102 [0092]). The cushioning material reduces noise inside the helmet to prevent undesirable sound properties ([0113]) and may be removable in order to replace and wash the cushion ([0114]). Hall also teaches that the peripheral edge of a face protector (fig. 1, face shield 108 [0095]) may be secured to a peripheral edge of a helmet (fig. 1, frame 106 of helmet 102 [0092]) by hook and loop fastener ([0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thiruppathi’s device to include an absorbent cushioning material removably attached to an inner edge of the helmet as taught by Hall, for the benefit of having a replaceable and washable means to reduce noise within the helmet, and to modify the way the face protector is secured to the peripheral edge of the helmet by using a plurality of hook and loop fasteners, as taught by Hall, since this was a known means of removably attaching a visor to a helmet (Hall [0095]).
Regarding Claim 2, Thiruppathi discloses a face mask shield device of claim 1, wherein the face protector is comprised of a transparent and a fluid impervious material (Thiruppathi fig. 1, visor 2 protects the face [0021] first col.; it is implicit that the visor is transparent since it is worn over the eyes of the user for riding a motorcycle [0005]).
Regarding Claim 3, Thiruppathi discloses a face mask shield device of claim 2, wherein the face protector is configured to cover a user’s eyes, ears, nose and the mouth area (Thiruppathi fig. 1, the helmet, visor, and face mask cover the whole head of the user [0021]; as best understood based on the 112(a) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 8, Thiruppathi discloses a face mask shield device of claim 1, wherein the helmet comprises a visor (Thiruppathi fig. 1, face protector 2 is a visor [0021] first col.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Thiruppathi and Hall, further in view of King (US 2021/0274862 A1), hereafter King.
Regarding Claim 6, Thiruppathi discloses a face mask shield device of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the face protector comprises a skin friendly layer.
King teaches a clear face mask (fig. 1, mask 100 [0014]) which is made of a biocompatible polymer in order to have a see-through mask which is safe for the skin ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Thiruppathi’s face protector from biocompatible polymers as taught by King in order to have a transparent face shield through which the wearer’s face is visible that is also safe for skin contact (King [0014]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Thiruppathi and Hall, further in view of James (US 5283914) hereafter James.
Regarding Claim 10, Thiruppathi discloses a face mask shield device of claim 8, but is silent on wherein the helmet comprises a headlamp positioned above the visor.
James teaches a helmet having a visor (fig. 1, protective helmet 1, col. 2 line 67, and visor 30, col. 3 line 30) which includes a headlamp (fig. 1, a head lamp attaches to bracket 29, col. 3 lines 27-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a headlamp positioned above the visor as taught by James in order to provide illumination for a worker in dark areas (James col. 2, lines 43-45).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Thiruppathi, Hall, and James, further in view of Himmele (US 2006/0126013), hereafter Himmele.
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Thiruppathi discloses a face mask shield device of claim 10, but as modified by James, does not explicitly disclose wherein the headlamp is an LED.
However, Himmele teaches the use of LED in illuminating a helmet (fig. 1A, helmet 1 with display 2 [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the bulb of the headlamp in the modified Thiruppathi for an LED as taught by Himmele, since an LED would be bright enough to still be seen in daylight to improve visibility (Himmele [0027]) and the LED would predictably be able to illuminate a headlamp at least equally well to a conventional bulb.
Regarding Claim 12, the modified Thiruppathi discloses a face mask shield device of claim 11, wherein the protective mask component comprises a pair of detachable earmuffs (as modified by Hall, the noise reduction device 118 in fig. 1 cover the ears to reduce noise [0114] and thus can be considered ear muffs; these are removable [0114]).
Regarding Claim 13, Thiruppathi discloses a face mask shield device of claim 1, but is silent on the device further comprising a plurality of indicia.
Himmele teaches a face mask shield device (fig. 5A, helmet 1 with optical element 8 [0032]) with a plurality of indicia on the helmet (fig. 5A, display 2 located on the sides and/or the front and back of the helmet [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of indicia on Thiruppathi’s face mask shield device in order to visually communicate with other people in the vicinity (Himmele [0027]).
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Atri (US 2021/0368885 A1), hereafter Atri, in view of Hall, and further in view of Curran et al. (GB 2505484), hereafter Curran.
Regarding Claim 14, Atri discloses a face mask shield device (fig. 2A, 200 [0047]) comprising: a protective mask component (fig. 2B, protective mask component includes the assembly of 216, 218, and 224 [0049-0050]) comprising: a detachable respirator that can be secured adjacent a mouth area of a user (fig. 2, air relief vent 224 is detachable from the device by removing the lower part of the face shield 218 [0049]); a pair of earmuffs secured adjacent an ear area of the user (fig. 2B, ear covering unit 228 [0051]); a face protector (fig. 2B, face protector is the assembly of 216 and 218 [0049] which is shown covering the whole face); and a plurality of fasteners ([0028] a plurality of different types of fasteners may be used to secure the face shield to the frame of the device), wherein the face protector is magnetically secured to a peripheral edge by the plurality of fasteners ([0028] the face shield may be connected to the frame by magnets); and further wherein the face mask shield device is powered via a rechargeable battery ([0039] a USB rechargeable battery).
Atri’s embodiment of figs. 2A-B is silent on the respirator containing a filter secured adjacent the mouth area (relief vent 224 is not disclosed to have a filter, though housing 212 fig. 2D does include a filter [0048]), whether the earmuffs are detachable, whether the face protector is secured to a peripheral edge of a helmet by the plurality of fasteners; wherein the helmet comprises a headlamp (though [0037] does disclose that the device may have an LED to illuminate the surrounding environment), and a battery compartment secured within an armband worn by the user, and wherein the protective mask component comprises a plurality of antibacterial and electromagnetic radiation barrier layers.
However, Atri discloses an embodiment which uses filter secured adjacent the mouth area which includes antibacterial properties (fig. 3A, removable lower face shield 300 includes an anti-bacterial filter 314, fig. 3C [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the embodiments of Atri to place an antibacterial filter adjacent the mouth area in order to protect the wearer from exposure to bacteria ([0054]).
Hall teaches a face mask shield device (fig. 11, head covering device “HCD” 1100 [0152]) having a face shield (fig. 11, 1104 [0153]) that has a helmet (fig. 11, 1102 [0152]) for user safety in an occupational setting ([0152]). The device also includes noise reduction devices (fig. 11, 1118 [0153]) that may be considered earmuffs. The noise reduction devices are detachable ([0153]) in order to be cleaned. Hall also teaches a headlamp (fig. 11, 1132 [0166]) to illuminate dimly lit locations. Hall also teaches that the visor includes an electromagnetic radiation barrier layer (fig. 9, 1004 [0144]) to protect the wearer ([0143]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a helmet into Atri’s device as taught by Hall to protect the head of the wearer against impact (Hall [0152]), to make the earmuffs detachable in order to wash or replace them (Hall [0153]), to modify Atri’s LED light to be a headlamp to illuminate dimly lit locations (Hall [0166]), and to include an electromagnetic barrier layer in the face protector portion of the protective mask component as taught by Hall in order to protect the wearer against UV exposure (Hall [0144]).
The now modified device remains silent on whether there is a battery compartment secured within an armband worn by a user.
Curran teaches that a battery pack for a powered protective face mask may be worn in a variety of ways, including on the arm of a user using a belt, equivalent to a band (fig. 8, battery pack 46, page 12 lines 10-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the location of the battery compartment to be secured within an armband worn by a user as taught by Curran, for the benefit of using a separate, larger battery pack positioned outside the head-worn apparatus to reduce the weight on the user’s head (Curran page 12, first para.).
Regarding Claim 15, the modified Atri discloses a face mask shield device of claim 14, wherein the helmet comprises a visor (Atri as modified by Hall has a helmet (Hall fig. 11, helmet 1102) with a connected visor (Atri fig. 2B, 216 and Hall fig. 11 1104 both show a visor).
Regarding Claim 16, the modified Atri discloses a face mask shield device of claim 14, wherein the headlamp is an LED (the headlamp as modified, is described as an LED in Atri [0037]).
Regarding Claim 19, Atri discloses a face mask shield device of claim 14, wherein the face protector is comprised of a material that is both transparent (Atri [0026]) and fluid impervious (Atri [0034]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Proctor (US 2013/0139816 A1), hereafter Proctor, in view of Hall.
Regarding claim 20, Proctor discloses a method of protecting a user from flying debris and other contaminants in a workplace environment ([0042]), the method comprising the steps of:
providing a face mask shield device (fig. 1, respirator 10 [0043]) comprising a protective mask component (fig. 1, the assembly of face mask 20, chin collar 15 [0043] and fan 60 [0044]) that is configured to fully encapsulate a nose, mouth, eyes and ears of the user (fig. 1, the assembly of the protective mask component is shown covering the nose, mouth, eyes, and ears) and a battery (fig. 8, battery pack 70 [0059]);
securing the face mask shield device to a user’s face area (fig. 1, respirator 10 is secured to the face [0043]);
securing a detachable respirator filter to the face mask shield device as needed (fig. 5, filter 19 is detachable since it is a replaceable cartridge [0060]);
utilizing the face mask shield device in a hazardous material environment ([0042] the respirator device is used in hazardous environments such as agriculture and other hazardous environments); and
recharging the battery after use of the face mask shield device as needed ([0058] the batteries are rechargeable),
Proctor is silent on detachable earmuffs, and wherein the protective face mask component is magnetically secured to a peripheral edge of a helmet; and wherein the protective mask component comprises a plurality of antibacterial and antiviral protective layers.
Hall teaches a head covering device (fig. 1, 102 [0092]) having a face shield (fig. 1, 108 [0092]) that may be magnetically attached to the frame supporting the face shield to the head covering device (fig. 1, frame 106 [0092] may be magnetically attached [0095]). Hall also discloses an embodiment of the head covering device which includes a helmet (fig. 11, helmet 1102 [0152]) which is attached to an equivalent frame (fig. 11, frame 1106 [0153]) that may be integrated with the previous embodiments. Hall also discloses detachable ear muffs (fig. 1, noise reduction devices 118 [0113]) which reduce undesirable audio properties for noise reduction ([0113]) and are removable, washable, and replaceable ([0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Proctor’s protective face shield to include a helmet magnetically attached at the peripheral edge using Hall’s frame and magnets to detachably secure Proctor’s protective face mask component for the benefit of including a hard hat in Proctor’s device for additional head protection in a hazardous work site (Hall [0152]), as well as to include removable ear muffs as taught by Hall for the benefit of noise reduction (Hall [0114]).
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 SARA K. TOICH whose telephone number is (703)756-1450. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30 am - 4:30 pm, every other F 7:30-3:30 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 S. 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.
/SARA K TOICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785