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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 12-18, in the reply filed on 1/22/26 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
The cancellation of claims 1-11, 19, and 20 and the addition of new claims 21-33 in the response filed 1/22/26 are acknowledged.
Claims 12-18 and 21-33 are now pending in the application and are examined below.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 26-28, 32, and 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“A eyes” in claim 12, line 1 should be amended to recite --An eyes--
“in contract” in claim 12, line 9 should be amended to recite --be in contact--
“in contact with the left” in claim 12, line 12 should be amended to recite --be in contact with left--
“do not” in claim 12, line 16 should be amended to recite --are configured to not--
“overlaps” in claim 12, line 26 should be amended to recite --to overlap--
“the wearer safety shield accessory does not cover” in claim 12, line 30 should be amended to recite --the eyes safety shield accessory is not configured to cover--
“when the eyes safety shield accessory is worn by the wearer” in claim 16, line 5 should be amended to recite --wherein the eyes safety shield accessory is configured to be worn by the wearer--
“does not cover the nostrils” in claim 18, line 5 should be amended to recite --is not configured to cover the nostrils--
“in contact with” in claim 21, line 3 should be amended to recite --contactable with--
“a wearer” in claim 21, line 4 should be amended to recite --the wearer--
“eyewear;” in claim 21, line 5 should be amended to recite --eyewear.--
“A eyes” in claim 22, line 1 should be amended to recite --An eyes--
“in contract” in claim 22, line 8-9 should be amended to recite --be in contact--
“in contact with the left” in claim 22, line 11-12 should be amended to recite --be in contact with left--
“do not” in claim 22, line 29 should be amended to recite --are configured to not--
“overlaps” in claim 22, line 39 should be amended to recite --to overlap--
“the wearer safety shield accessory does not cover” in claim 22, line 43 should be amended to recite --the eyes safety shield accessory is not configured to cover--
“when the eyes safety shield accessory is worn by the wearer” in claim 24, line 4 should be amended to recite --wherein the eyes safety shield accessory is configured to be worn by the wearer--
“does not cover the nostrils” in claim 26, line 5 should be amended to recite --is not configured to cover the nostrils--
“in contact with” in claim 27, line 3 should be amended to recite --contactable with--
“a wearer” in claim 27, line 4 should be amended to recite --the wearer--
“eyewear;” in claim 27, line 5 should be amended to recite --eyewear.--
“A eyes” in claim 28, line 1 should be amended to recite --An eyes--
“in contract” in claim 28, line 9 should be amended to recite --be in contact--
“in contact with the left” in claim 28, line 12-13 should be amended to recite --be in contact with left--
“do not” in claim 28, line 16 should be amended to recite --are configured to not--
“when the eyes safety shield accessory is worn by the wearer” in claim 28, line 30 should be amended to recite --wherein the eyes safety shield accessory is configured to be worn by the wearer--
“overlaps” in claim 28, line 33 should be amended to recite --to overlap--
“does not cover the oral cavity” in claim 28, line 37 should be amended to recite --is not configured to cover the oral cavity --
“does not cover the nostrils” in claim 32, line 4 should be amended to recite --is not configured to cover the nostrils--
“in contact with” in claim 33, line 3 should be amended to recite --contactable with--
“a wearer” in claim 33, line 4 should be amended to recite --the wearer--
“eyewear;” in claim 33, line 5 should be amended to recite --eyewear.--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 12-18 and 21-33 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 12, the claim recites the limitations “the width” in line 5, “the length” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “substantially” in line 7 and 12 of the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 13, the term “substantially” in lines 4, 6, 9, and 10 of the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 14, the term “approximately” in line 3 of the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 15, the term “substantially” in line 2 and “similarly” in line 3 of the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” and “similarly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 17, the term “approximately” in line 3 of the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites the limitations “the width” in line 5, “the length” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “substantially” in line 7, 14, 17, 19, 21, and 29 of the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “approximately” in line 22 of the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 23, the term “substantially” in line 2 and “similarly” in line 3 of the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” and “similarly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 25, the term “approximately” in line 2 of the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 28, the claim recites the limitations “the width” in line 5, “the length” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “substantially” in line 7, 16, and 26 and “similarly” in line 27 of the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” and “similarly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 29, the term “substantially” in lines 3, 5, 8, and 9 of the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 30, the term “approximately” in line 2 of the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 31, the term “approximately” in line 2 of the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claims 16, 18, 21, 24, 26, 27, 30, 32, and 33, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by virtue of their dependence on claims 12, 22, and 28.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 12-18 and 21-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “gaps formed respectively: between the left and right cheeks of the wearer” in lines 21-22, thus positively reciting the left and right cheeks of the wearer. Language such as “adapted” or “configured” is suggested to avoid claiming a human organism.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the limitation “the eyes of the wearer are protected” in line 3, thus positively reciting the eyes of the wearer. Language such as “adapted” or “configured” is suggested to avoid claiming a human organism.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites the limitation “gaps formed respectively: between the left and right cheeks of the wearer” in lines 34-35, thus positively reciting the left and right cheeks of the wearer. Language such as “adapted” or “configured” is suggested to avoid claiming a human organism.
Regarding claim 26, the claim recites the limitation “the eyes of the wearer are protected” in line 2, thus positively reciting the eyes of the wearer. Language such as “adapted” or “configured” is suggested to avoid claiming a human organism.
Regarding claim 28, the claim recites the limitation “gaps formed respectively: between the left and right cheeks of the wearer” in lines 21-22, thus positively reciting the left and right cheeks of the wearer. Language such as “adapted” or “configured” is suggested to avoid claiming a human organism.
Regarding claim 32, the claim recites the limitation “the eyes of the wearer are protected” in line 2, thus positively reciting the eyes of the wearer. Language such as “adapted” or “configured” is suggested to avoid claiming a human organism.
Regarding claims 13-17, 21, 23-25, 27, 29-31, and 33, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of their dependence on claims 12, 22, and 28.
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) 12, 14-18, 21, 28, and 30-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyce US 4,797,956 in view of Zegarelli et al. US 2003/0028946 A1.
Regarding claim 12, Boyce discloses an eyes safety shield accessory 10 for eyewear having left and right lenses and configured to be worn by a wearer for protection of the eyes of the wearer exposed to at least one of aerosol spray, debris, and projectiles from the uncovered oral cavity of the wearer (fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 51-52, eye shield 10; col. 4, lines 14-16, the user may be wearing eyeglasses, which can be seen in the figure having left and right lenses; the eyeglasses are capable of being worn by the wearer for protection from aerosol spray, debris, and projectiles from the uncovered oral cavity of the wearer), the eyes safety shield accessory 10 comprising:
a first portion having a length at least the width of the eyewear (please see annotated fig. A below, which designates the first portion as the bottom band of the shield 10);
and
a second portion 14 connected to, and not substantially exceeding the length of, the first portion (annotated fig. A and col. 4, lines 32-43, moldable stiffener 14 encapsulated within heat-activated tape at the bottom of the transparent material 12), wherein:
the first and second portions are flexible to make a conforming fit over and in contact with the nose of the wearer (fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 18-37);
the second portion 14 is positioned below the left and right lenses (fig. 1); and
the first portion is flexible to make a conforming fit over and in contact with the left and right cheek portions that are adjacent to the nose of the wearer (annotated fig. A shows the bottom band/first portion running along the left and right cheek portions adjacent to the nose; further, in col. 4, lines 18-37, the transparent material 12 (which forms the bottom band/first portion and within which the moldable stiffeners 14/16 reside) is flexible, thus making it capable of contacting the left and right cheek portions depending on how the moldable stiffeners are adjusted);
and
a deflector shield 12 having left and right portions (annotated fig. A, the deflector shield being the main body of the transparent material 12 above the bottom band/first portion, an the left and right portions being the left and right halves) that:
do not substantially block:
the uncovered oral cavity (fig. 1, the transparent material 12 does not extend below the nose);
the nostrils of the wearer (fig. 1, the transparent material 12 does not cover the nostrils);
a line of vision of the wearer (fig. 1, the transparent material 12 is see-through and thus does not block vision);
extend above the first portion respectively to the left and right lenses (annotated fig. A, the main body of the material 12 above the first portion extends from the top of the first portion upwards, towards and over the left and right lenses);
respectively cover left and right gaps formed respectively:
between the left and right cheeks of the wearer; and
below the left and right lenses of the eyewear (annotated fig. A, since the material 12 extends from the cheeks and over the bottom of the lenses of the eyewear, it covers the gaps formed between the cheeks and the eyewear);
are attached to a fastener 26 for fastening to the head (fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 52-57, headband 26 fastens the eye shield 10 to the head);
wherein the eyes safety shield accessory 10 for eyewear is configured to be worn by the wearer and overlaps the eyewear worn by the wearer and is neither attached, connected, nor adhesively bound to the eyewear worn by the wearer (fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 52-54, headband 26 fastens the eye shield 10 to the head, and there is no further mention of the shield 10 being otherwise attached, connected, or adhesively bound to the eyewear itself), whereby:
when the fastener 26 is fastened to the head, then the eyes safety shield accessory 10 is held in place and against the face of the wearer (fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 52-54); and
the wearer safety shield accessory 10 does not cover the oral cavity of the wearer (fig. 1).
Boyce is silent on the fastener for fastening to the head being ear loops configured to be fitted over or around the ears of the wearer.
However, Zegarelli teaches an analogous shield 16 for the face (fig. 1 and [0001]) comprising ear loops 26/28 configured to be fitted over or around the ears of the wearer (figs. 1 and 3 and [0012], positioning elastic loops 26/28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the fastener for fastening to the head of Boyce to be ear loops configured to be fitted over or around the ears of the wearer, as taught by Zegarelli, for a more secure attachment to the face, as a string around the head may easily slip.
PNG
media_image1.png
690
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Boyce in view of Zegarelli discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Boyce further discloses wherein: the first portion can be folded into a plane that is approximately normal to a plane assumed by the deflector shield 12 (annotated fig. A, where the bottom band/first portion is folded to accommodate the peak of the nose, which extends and protrudes approximately normal to the flat plane of the body of the panel 12, since the nose protrudes outwards from the face); the second portion 14 has a surface on which the first portion is attached; and some of the second portion 14 is embedded within the first portion (annotated fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 32-47, moldable stiffener 14 is secured to the lower portion of the transparent material 12 by being encapsulated with heat-activated tape; thus, if the heat-activated tape is interpreted to form part of the claimed first portion, then the stiffener 14 is embedded within the first portion and the first portion surrounds both inner and outer surfaces of the second portion 14).
Regarding claim 15, Boyce in view of Zegarelli discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Boyce further discloses the right and left portions of the deflector shield 12 being substantially identical mirror-image of the other so as to be similarly profiled, oriented, and attached (annotated fig. A, the left and right halves/portions of the panel 12 can be considered substantially mirror-image of the other).
Regarding claim 16, Boyce in view of Zegarelli discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Boyce further discloses the deflector shield 12 being configured to be conformable to fit to the face of the wearer wearing the eyewear (fig. 1 shows the panel 12 being worn over the eyewear to conform to the face); and when the eyes safety shield accessory 10 is worn by the wearer below the eyewear worn by the wearer (fig. 1, the device 10 extends past the bottom of the eyewear to cover the nose).
Regarding claim 17, Boyce in view of Zegarelli discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Boyce further discloses the first portion being folded into a plane approximately normal to a plane assumed by the deflector shield 12 (figs. 1 and 1A, where the bottom band/first portion of the panel 12 follows the contour of the nose to extend over the tip of the nose; therefore, the first portion is folded into the sagittal plane of the nose to form a peak approximately normal to the plane of the panel 12); the second portion 14 is bendable from a first position thereof to a second position thereof, wherein the second portion 14, after being bent, retains the second position thereof and causes the first portion, after being bent with the second portion 14 to bend from a first position thereof to a second position thereof that is also retained with the second position of the second portion; the first and second portions are bendable from the respective first positions thereof to the second positions thereof so as to be configured to make conforming fits over both: the nose of the wearer; and the left and right cheek portions of the wearer adjacent to the nose of the wearer (fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 32-47, moldable stiffener 14 bends to a shape that conforms to the nose and cheeks of the wearer; therefore, since moldable stiffener 14 is attached to the bottom band/first portion of the panel 12, they are both capable of being bent together from a flat position (i.e., first position) to a bent position (i.e., second position) to conform to the nose and cheeks of the wearer, as can be seen in figs. 1 and 1A).
Regarding claim 18, Boyce in view of Zegarelli discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Boyce further discloses the eyes of the wearer being protected from the at least one of aerosol spray, debris, and projectiles from the uncovered oral cavity of the wearer (fig. 1, the glasses and the panel 12 are capable of providing protection to the eyes from spray, debris, and projectiles, since they cover the eyes); the eyes safety shield accessory 10 for eyewear does not cover the nostrils of the wearer (figs. 1 and 1A); and nothing is attached to a bottom or a posterior area of the eyes safety shield accessory 10 for eyewear (fig. 1, the bottom edge of device 10 being free and unattached to anything; fig. 1A and col. 4, lines 4-17, the upper edge of device 10 is connected to the glasses by folding the panel 12 over the top edge of the glasses; thus, since the device 10 is simply laid over and folded over the glasses (rather than being attached or fixed to it), both the bottom and posterior area of the device 10 is not attached to anything; please note that simply touching/overlapping the eyewear is not interpreted as being “attached”, as Applicant’s device also overlaps the eyewear).
Regarding claim 21, Boyce in view of Zegarelli discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Boyce further discloses the first and second portions being flexible so as to be formable into a nose clip strip conformable to and in contact with: the nose of a wearer wearing the eyewear; and left and right cheek portions adjacent to the nose of the wearer wearing the eyewear (figs. 1 and 1A and col. 4, lines 32-37, the moldable stiffener 14 and lower band/first portion are bent together to conform to the nose and cheeks).
Regarding claim 28, Boyce discloses an eyes safety shield accessory 10 for eyewear having left and right lenses and configured to be worn by a wearer for protection of the eyes of the wearer exposed to at least one of aerosol spray, debris, and projectiles from the uncovered oral cavity of the wearer (fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 51-52, eye shield 10; col. 4, lines 14-16, the user may be wearing eyeglasses, which can be seen in the figure having left and right lenses; the eyeglasses are capable of being worn by the wearer for protection from aerosol spray, debris, and projectiles from the uncovered oral cavity of the wearer), the eyes safety shield accessory 10 comprising:
a first portion having a length at least the width of the eyewear (please see annotated fig. A, which designates the first portion as the bottom band of the shield 10);
and
a second portion 14 connected to, and not substantially exceeding the length of, the first portion (annotated fig. A and col. 4, lines 32-43, moldable stiffener 14 encapsulated within heat-activated tape at the bottom of the transparent material 12), wherein:
the first and second portions are flexible to make a conforming fit over and in contact with the nose of the wearer (fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 18-37);
the second portion 14 is positioned below the left and right lenses (fig. 1); and
the first portion is flexible to make a conforming fit over and in contact with the left and right cheek portions that are adjacent to the nose of the wearer (annotated fig. A shows the bottom band/first portion running along the left and right cheek portions adjacent to the nose; further, in col. 4, lines 18-37, the transparent material 12 (which forms the bottom band/first portion and within which the moldable stiffeners 14/16 reside) is flexible, thus making it capable of contacting the left and right cheek portions depending on how the moldable stiffeners are adjusted);
and
a deflector shield 12 having left and right portions (annotated fig. A, the deflector shield being the main body of the transparent material 12 above the bottom band/first portion, an the left and right portions being the left and right halves) that:
do not substantially block:
the uncovered oral cavity (fig. 1, the transparent material 12 does not extend below the nose);
the nostrils of the wearer (fig. 1, the transparent material 12 does not cover the nostrils);
a line of vision of the wearer (fig. 1, the transparent material 12 is see-through and thus does not block vision);
extend above the first portion respectively to the left and right lenses (annotated fig. A, the main body of the material 12 above the first portion extends from the top of the first portion upwards, towards and over the left and right lenses);
respectively cover left and right gaps formed respectively:
between the left and right cheeks of the wearer; and
below the left and right lenses of the eyewear (annotated fig. A, since the material 12 extends from the cheeks and over the bottom of the lenses of the eyewear, it covers the gaps formed between the cheeks and the eyewear);
are attached to a fastener 26 for fastening to the head (fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 52-57, headband 26 fastens the eye shield 10 to the head); wherein:
the right and left portions of the deflector shield 12 being substantially identical mirror-image of the other so as to be similarly profiled, oriented, and attached (annotated fig. A, the left and right halves/portions of the panel 12 can be considered substantially mirror-image of the other);
the deflector shield 12 being configured to be conformable to fit to the face of the wearer wearing the eyewear (fig. 1 shows the panel 12 being worn over the eyewear to conform to the face);
when the eyes safety shield accessory 10 is worn by the wearer below the eyewear worn by the wearer (fig. 1, the device 10 extends past the bottom of the eyewear to cover the nose);
the eyes safety shield accessory 10 for eyewear is configured to be worn by the wearer and overlaps the eyewear worn by the wearer and is neither attached, connected, nor adhesively bound to the eyewear worn by the wearer (fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 52-54, headband 26 fastens the eye shield 10 to the head, and there is no further mention of the shield 10 being otherwise attached, connected, or adhesively bound to the eyewear itself), whereby:
when the fastener 26 is fastened to the head, then the eyes safety shield accessory 10 is held in place and against the face of the wearer (fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 52-54); and
the wearer safety shield accessory 10 does not cover the oral cavity of the wearer (fig. 1).
Boyce is silent on the fastener for fastening to the head being ear loops configured to be fitted over or around the ears of the wearer.
However, Zegarelli teaches an analogous shield 16 for the face (fig. 1 and [0001]) comprising ear loops 26/28 configured to be fitted over or around the ears of the wearer (figs. 1 and 3 and [0012], positioning elastic loops 26/28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the fastener for fastening to the head of Boyce to be ear loops configured to be fitted over or around the ears of the wearer, as taught by Zegarelli, for a more secure attachment to the face, as a string around the head may easily slip.
Regarding claim 30, Boyce in view of Zegarelli discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Boyce further discloses wherein: the first portion can be folded into a plane that is approximately normal to a plane assumed by the deflector shield 12 (annotated fig. A, where the bottom band/first portion is folded to accommodate the peak of the nose, which extends and protrudes approximately normal to the flat plane of the body of the panel 12, since the nose protrudes outwards from the face); the second portion 14 has a surface on which the first portion is attached; and some of the second portion 14 is embedded within the first portion (annotated fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 32-47, moldable stiffener 14 is secured to the lower portion of the transparent material 12 by being encapsulated with heat-activated tape; thus, if the heat-activated tape is interpreted to form part of the claimed first portion, then the stiffener 14 is embedded within the first portion and the first portion surrounds both inner and outer surfaces of the second portion 14).
Regarding claim 31, Boyce in view of Zegarelli discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Boyce further discloses the first portion being folded into a plane approximately normal to a plane assumed by the deflector shield 12 (figs. 1 and 1A, where the bottom band/first portion of the panel 12 follows the contour of the nose to extend over the tip of the nose; therefore, the first portion is folded into the sagittal plane of the nose to form a peak approximately normal to the plane of the panel 12); the second portion 14 is bendable from a first position thereof to a second position thereof, wherein the second portion 14, after being bent, retains the second position thereof and causes the first portion, after being bent with the second portion 14 to bend from a first position thereof to a second position thereof that is also retained with the second position of the second portion; the first and second portions are bendable from the respective first positions thereof to the second positions thereof so as to be configured to make conforming fits over both: the nose of the wearer; and the left and right cheek portions of the wearer adjacent to the nose of the wearer (fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 32-47, moldable stiffener 14 bends to a shape that conforms to the nose and cheeks of the wearer; therefore, since moldable stiffener 14 is attached to the bottom band/first portion of the panel 12, they are both capable of being bent together from a flat position (i.e., first position) to a bent position (i.e., second position) to conform to the nose and cheeks of the wearer, as can be seen in figs. 1 and 1A).
Regarding claim 32, Boyce in view of Zegarelli discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Boyce further discloses the eyes of the wearer being protected from the at least one of aerosol spray, debris, and projectiles from the uncovered oral cavity of the wearer (fig. 1, the glasses and the panel 12 are capable of providing protection to the eyes from spray, debris, and projectiles, since they cover the eyes); the eyes safety shield accessory 10 for eyewear does not cover the nostrils of the wearer (figs. 1 and 1A); and nothing is attached to a bottom or a posterior area of the eyes safety shield accessory 10 for eyewear (fig. 1, the bottom edge of device 10 being free and unattached to anything; fig. 1A and col. 4, lines 4-17, the upper edge of device 10 is connected to the glasses by folding the panel 12 over the top edge of the glasses; thus, since the device 10 is simply laid over and folded over the glasses (rather than being attached or fixed to it), both the bottom and posterior area of the device 10 is not attached to anything; please note that simply touching/overlapping the eyewear is not interpreted as being “attached”, as Applicant’s device also overlaps the eyewear).
Regarding claim 33, Boyce in view of Zegarelli discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Boyce further discloses the first and second portions being flexible so as to be formable into a nose clip strip conformable to and in contact with: the nose of a wearer wearing the eyewear; and left and right cheek portions adjacent to the nose of the wearer wearing the eyewear (figs. 1 and 1A and col. 4, lines 32-37, the moldable stiffener 14 and lower band/first portion are bent together to conform to the nose and cheeks).
Claim(s) 13, 22-27, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyce US 4,797,956 in view of Zegarelli et al. US 2003/0028946 A1 further in view of Ward US 4,520,509.
Regarding claim 13, Boyce in view of Zegarelli discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Boyce further discloses the second portion 14 comprising at least one of: a material substantially malleable and ductile (col. 3, lines 53-55, moldable stiffener means 14 being a metal strip, where metal is both malleable and ductile); and a material substantially composed of aluminum.
Boyce in view of Zegarelli is silent on the first portion comprising at least one of: a material substantially formed by trapping pockets of gas in a liquid so as to form cells; and a material is substantially composed of a solid foam material.
However, Ward teaches an analogous first portion 5 for conforming to the nose (figs. 2 and 3 and col. 2, lines 57-58) comprising at least one of: a material substantially formed by trapping pockets of gas in a liquid so as to form cells; and a material 23 is substantially composed of a solid foam material (figs. 2 and 2 and col. 3, line 64-col. 4, line 7, the nose portion 5 comprises a foam strip 23 attached to a malleable stiffener 24, similar to Boyce’s device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the first portion of Boyce in view of Zegarelli to comprise at least one of: a material substantially formed by trapping pockets of gas in a liquid so as to form cells; and a material is substantially composed of a solid foam material, as taught by Ward, to provide additional sealing and comfort to the nose area when using a metal strip.
Regarding claim 22, Boyce discloses an eyes safety shield accessory 10 for eyewear having left and right lenses and configured to be worn by a wearer for protection of the eyes of the wearer exposed to at least one of aerosol spray, debris, and projectiles from the uncovered oral cavity of the wearer (fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 51-52, eye shield 10; col. 4, lines 14-16, the user may be wearing eyeglasses, which can be seen in the figure having left and right lenses; the eyeglasses are capable of being worn by the wearer for protection from aerosol spray, debris, and projectiles from the uncovered oral cavity of the wearer), the eyes safety shield accessory 10 comprising:
a first portion having a length at least the width of the eyewear (please see annotated fig. A, which designates the first portion as the bottom band of the shield 10);
and
a second portion 14 connected to, and not substantially exceeding the length of, the first portion (annotated fig. A and col. 4, lines 32-43, moldable stiffener 14 encapsulated within heat-activated tape at the bottom of the transparent material 12), wherein:
the first and second portions are flexible to make a conforming fit over and in contact with the nose of the wearer (fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 18-37);
the second portion 14 is positioned below the left and right lenses (fig. 1); and
the first portion is flexible to make a conforming fit over and in contact with the left and right cheek portions that are adjacent to the nose of the wearer (annotated fig. A shows the bottom band/first portion running along the left and right cheek portions adjacent to the nose; further, in col. 4, lines 18-37, the transparent material 12 (which forms the bottom band/first portion and within which the moldable stiffeners 14/16 reside) is flexible, thus making it capable of contacting the left and right cheek portions depending on how the moldable stiffeners are adjusted);
the second portion 14 comprising at least one of: a material substantially malleable and ductile (col. 3, lines 53-55, moldable stiffener means 14 being a metal strip, where metal is both malleable and ductile); and a material substantially composed of aluminum;
the first portion can be folded into a plane that is approximately normal to a plane assumed by the deflector shield 12 (annotated fig. A, where the bottom band/first portion is folded to accommodate the peak of the nose, which extends and protrudes approximately normal to the flat plane of the body of the panel 12, since the nose protrudes outwards from the face); the second portion 14 has a surface on which the first portion is attached; and at least some of the second portion 14 is embedded within the first portion (annotated fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 32-47, moldable stiffener 14 is secured to the lower portion of the transparent material 12 by being encapsulated with heat-activated tape; thus, if the heat-activated tape is interpreted to form part of the claimed first portion, then the stiffener 14 is embedded within the first portion and the first portion surrounds both inner and outer surfaces of the second portion 14);
and
a deflector shield 12 having left and right portions (annotated fig. A, the deflector shield being the main body of the transparent material 12 above the bottom band/first portion, an the left and right portions being the left and right halves) that:
do not substantially block:
the uncovered oral cavity (fig. 1, the transparent material 12 does not extend below the nose);
the nostrils of the wearer (fig. 1, the transparent material 12 does not cover the nostrils);
a line of vision of the wearer (fig. 1, the transparent material 12 is see-through and thus does not block vision);
extend above the first portion respectively to the left and right lenses (annotated fig. A, the main body of the material 12 above the first portion extends from the top of the first portion upwards, towards and over the left and right lenses);
respectively cover left and right gaps formed respectively:
between the left and right cheeks of the wearer; and
below the left and right lenses of the eyewear (annotated fig. A, since the material 12 extends from the cheeks and over the bottom of the lenses of the eyewear, it covers the gaps formed between the cheeks and the eyewear);
are attached to a fastener 26 for fastening to the head (fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 52-57, headband 26 fastens the eye shield 10 to the head);
wherein the eyes safety shield accessory 10 for eyewear is configured to be worn by the wearer and overlaps the eyewear worn by the wearer and is neither attached, connected, nor adhesively bound to the eyewear worn by the wearer (fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 52-54, headband 26 fastens the eye shield 10 to the head, and there is no further mention of the shield 10 being otherwise attached, connected, or adhesively bound to the eyewear itself), whereby:
when the fastener 26 is fastened to the head, then the eyes safety shield accessory 10 is held in place and against the face of the wearer (fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 52-54); and
the wearer safety shield accessory 10 does not cover the oral cavity of the wearer (fig. 1).
Boyce is silent on the fastener for fastening to the head being ear loops configured to be fitted over or around the ears of the wearer.
However, Zegarelli teaches an analogous shield 16 for the face (fig. 1 and [0001]) comprising ear loops 26/28 configured to be fitted over or around the ears of the wearer (figs. 1 and 3 and [0012], positioning elastic loops 26/28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the fastener for fastening to the head of Boyce to be ear loops configured to be fitted over or around the ears of the wearer, as taught by Zegarelli, for a more secure attachment to the face, as a string around the head may easily slip.
Boyce in view of Zegarelli is silent on the first portion comprising at least one of: a material substantially formed by trapping pockets of gas in a liquid so as to form cells; and a material is substantially composed of a solid foam material.
However, Ward teaches an analogous first portion 5 for conforming to the nose (figs. 2 and 3 and col. 2, lines 57-58) comprising at least one of: a material substantially formed by trapping pockets of gas in a liquid so as to form cells; and a material 23 is substantially composed of a solid foam material (figs. 2 and 2 and col. 3, line 64-col. 4, line 7, the nose portion 5 comprises a foam strip 23 attached to a malleable stiffener 24, similar to Boyce’s device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the first portion of Boyce in view of Zegarelli to comprise at least one of: a material substantially formed by trapping pockets of gas in a liquid so as to form cells; and a material is substantially composed of a solid foam material, as taught by Ward, to provide additional sealing and comfort to the nose area when using a metal strip.
Regarding claim 23, Boyce in view of Zegarelli further in view of Ward discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Boyce further discloses the right and left portions of the deflector shield 12 being substantially identical mirror-image of the other so as to be similarly profiled, oriented, and attached (annotated fig. A, the left and right halves/portions of the panel 12 can be considered substantially mirror-image of the other).
Regarding claim 24, Boyce in view of Zegarelli further in view of Ward discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Boyce further discloses the deflector shield 12 being configured to be conformable to fit to the face of the wearer wearing the eyewear (fig. 1 shows the panel 12 being worn over the eyewear to conform to the face); and when the eyes safety shield accessory 10 is worn by the wearer below the eyewear worn by the wearer (fig. 1, the device 10 extends past the bottom of the eyewear to cover the nose).
Regarding claim 25, Boyce in view of Zegarelli further in view of Ward discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Boyce further discloses the first portion being folded into a plane approximately normal to a plane assumed by the deflector shield 12 (figs. 1 and 1A, where the bottom band/first portion of the panel 12 follows the contour of the nose to extend over the tip of the nose; therefore, the first portion is folded into the sagittal plane of the nose to form a peak approximately normal to the plane of the panel 12); the second portion 14 is bendable from a first position thereof to a second position thereof, wherein the second portion 14, after being bent, retains the second position thereof and causes the first portion, after being bent with the second portion 14 to bend from a first position thereof to a second position thereof that is also retained with the second position of the second portion; the first and second portions are bendable from the respective first positions thereof to the second positions thereof so as to be configured to make conforming fits over both: the nose of the wearer; and the left and right cheek portions of the wearer adjacent to the nose of the wearer (fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 32-47, moldable stiffener 14 bends to a shape that conforms to the nose and cheeks of the wearer; therefore, since moldable stiffener 14 is attached to the bottom band/first portion of the panel 12, they are both capable of being bent together from a flat position (i.e., first position) to a bent position (i.e., second position) to conform to the nose and cheeks of the wearer, as can be seen in figs. 1 and 1A).
Regarding claim 26, Boyce in view of Zegarelli further in view of Ward discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Boyce further discloses the eyes of the wearer being protected from the at least one of aerosol spray, debris, and projectiles from the uncovered oral cavity of the wearer (fig. 1, the glasses and the panel 12 are capable of providing protection to the eyes from spray, debris, and projectiles, since they cover the eyes); the eyes safety shield accessory 10 for eyewear does not cover the nostrils of the wearer (figs. 1 and 1A); and nothing is attached to a bottom or a posterior area of the eyes safety shield accessory 10 for eyewear (fig. 1, the bottom edge of device 10 being free and unattached to anything; fig. 1A and col. 4, lines 4-17, the upper edge of device 10 is connected to the glasses by folding the panel 12 over the top edge of the glasses; thus, since the device 10 is simply laid over and folded over the glasses (rather than being attached or fixed to it), both the bottom and posterior area of the device 10 is not attached to anything; please note that simply touching/overlapping the eyewear is not interpreted as being “attached”, as Applicant’s device also overlaps the eyewear).
Regarding claim 27, Boyce in view of Zegarelli further in view of Ward discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Boyce further discloses the first and second portions being flexible so as to be formable into a nose clip strip conformable to and in contact with: the nose of a wearer wearing the eyewear; and left and right cheek portions adjacent to the nose of the wearer wearing the eyewear (figs. 1 and 1A and col. 4, lines 32-37, the moldable stiffener 14 and lower band/first portion are bent together to conform to the nose and cheeks).
Regarding claim 29, Boyce in view of Zegarelli discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Boyce further discloses the second portion 14 comprising at least one of: a material substantially malleable and ductile (col. 3, lines 53-55, moldable stiffener means 14 being a metal strip, where metal is both malleable and ductile); and a material substantially composed of aluminum.
Boyce in view of Zegarelli is silent on the first portion comprising at least one of: a material substantially formed by trapping pockets of gas in a liquid so as to form cells; and a material is substantially composed of a solid foam material.
However, Ward teaches an analogous first portion 5 for conforming to the nose (figs. 2 and 3 and col. 2, lines 57-58) comprising at least one of: a material substantially formed by trapping pockets of gas in a liquid so as to form cells; and a material 23 is substantially composed of a solid foam material (figs. 2 and 2 and col. 3, line 64-col. 4, line 7, the nose portion 5 comprises a foam strip 23 attached to a malleable stiffener 24, similar to Boyce’s device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the first portion of Boyce in view of Zegarelli to comprise at least one of: a material substantially formed by trapping pockets of gas in a liquid so as to form cells; and a material is substantially composed of a solid foam material, as taught by Ward, to provide additional sealing and comfort to the nose area when using a metal strip.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 12-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,583,448 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the conflicting patent anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Regarding claim 12, claim 11 of the patent anticipates the entirety of the claim.
Regarding claim 13, claim 12 of the patent anticipates the entirety of the claim.
Regarding claim 14, claim 13 of the patent anticipates the entirety of the claim.
Regarding claim 15, claim 14 of the patent anticipates the entirety of the claim.
Regarding claim 16, claim 15 of the patent anticipates the entirety of the claim.
Regarding claim 17, claim 16 of the patent anticipates the entirety of the claim.
Regarding claim 18, claim 11 of the patent anticipates the entirety of the claim.
Claims 21 and 28-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11, 12, 13, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,583,448 B1 in view of Boyce US 4,797,956.
Regarding claim 21, the patent claims the claims invention as discussed above.
The patent is silent on the first and second portions being flexible so as to be formable into a nose clip strip conformable to and in contact with: the nose of a wearer wearing the eyewear; and left and right cheek portions adjacent to the nose of the wearer wearing the eyewear.
However, Boyce teaches an analogous eyes safety shield accessory 10 for eyewear (fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 51-52, eye shield 10; col. 4, lines 14-16, the user may be wearing eyeglasses, which can be seen in the figure having left and right lenses), the first and second portions being flexible so as to be formable into a nose clip strip conformable to and in contact with: the nose of a wearer wearing the eyewear; and left and right cheek portions adjacent to the nose of the wearer wearing the eyewear (figs. 1 and 1A and col. 4, lines 32-37, the moldable stiffener 14 and lower band/first portion are bent together to conform to the nose and cheeks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the first and second portions of the patent to be flexible so as to be formable into a nose clip strip conformable to and in contact with: the nose of a wearer wearing the eyewear; and left and right cheek portions adjacent to the nose of the wearer wearing the eyewear, as taught by Boyce, to comfortable seal the device over the nose and prevent ingress of unwanted particles.
Regarding claim 28, claim 11 of the patent anticipates the entirety of the claim except the right and left portions of the deflector shield are substantially identical mirror-image of the other so as to be similarly profiled, oriented, and attached; the deflector shield is configured to be conformable to fit to the face of the wearer wearing the eyewear; when the eyes safety shield accessory is worn by the wearer below the eyewear worn by the wearer.
However, Boyce teaches an analogous eyes safety shield accessory 10 for eyewear (fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 51-52, eye shield 10; col. 4, lines 14-16, the user may be wearing eyeglasses, which can be seen in the figure having left and right lenses), the right and left portions of the deflector shield 12 being substantially identical mirror-image of the other so as to be similarly profiled, oriented, and attached (annotated fig. A, the left and right halves/portions of the panel 12 can be considered substantially mirror-image of the other), the deflector shield 12 being configured to be conformable to fit to the face of the wearer wearing the eyewear (fig. 1 shows the panel 12 being worn over the eyewear to conform to the face); and when the eyes safety shield accessory 10 is worn by the wearer below the eyewear worn by the wearer (fig. 1, the device 10 extends past the bottom of the eyewear to cover the nose).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the eyes safety shield accessory for eyewear of the patent such that the right and left portions of the deflector shield are substantially identical mirror-image of the other so as to be similarly profiled, oriented, and attached; the deflector shield is configured to be conformable to fit to the face of the wearer wearing the eyewear; when the eyes safety shield accessory is worn by the wearer below the eyewear worn by the wearer, as taught by Boyce, to provide full coverage over the left and right sides of the eyeglasses, as well as to protect the area under the eyewear to prevent ingress of unwanted particles.
Regarding claim 29, the patent in view of Boyce discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Claim 12 of the patent anticipates the entirety of the claim.
Regarding claim 30, the patent in view of Boyce discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Claim 13 of the patent anticipates the entirety of the claim.
Regarding claim 31, the patent in view of Boyce discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Claim 16 of the patent anticipates the entirety of the claim.
Regarding claim 32, the patent in view of Boyce discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Claim 11 of the patent anticipates the entirety of the claim.
Regarding claim 33, the patent in view of Boyce discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent is silent on the first and second portions being flexible so as to be formable into a nose clip strip conformable to and in contact with: the nose of a wearer wearing the eyewear; and left and right cheek portions adjacent to the nose of the wearer wearing the eyewear.
However, Boyce further teaches the first and second portions being flexible so as to be formable into a nose clip strip conformable to and in contact with: the nose of a wearer wearing the eyewear; and left and right cheek portions adjacent to the nose of the wearer wearing the eyewear (figs. 1 and 1A and col. 4, lines 32-37, the moldable stiffener 14 and lower band/first portion are bent together to conform to the nose and cheeks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the first and second portions of the patent in view of Boyce to be flexible so as to be formable into a nose clip strip conformable to and in contact with: the nose of a wearer wearing the eyewear; and left and right cheek portions adjacent to the nose of the wearer wearing the eyewear, as taught by Boyce, to comfortable seal the device over the nose and prevent ingress of unwanted particles.
Claims 22-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 14-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,583,448 B1 in view of Boyce US 4,797,956 further in view of Ward US 4,520,509.
Regarding claim 22, claim 11 of the patent anticipates the entirety of the claim except the first portion comprising at least one of: a material substantially formed by trapping pockets of gas in a liquid so as to form cells; and a material is substantially composed of a solid foam material; the second portion comprises at least one of: a material substantially malleable and ductile; and a material is substantially composed of aluminum; the first portion can be folded into a plane that is approximately normal to a plane assumed by the deflector shield; the second portion has a surface on which the first portion is attached; and at least some of the second portion is embedded within the first portion.
However, Boyce teaches an analogous eyes safety shield accessory 10 for eyewear (fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 51-52, eye shield 10; col. 4, lines 14-16, the user may be wearing eyeglasses, which can be seen in the figure having left and right lenses), the second portion 14 comprising at least one of: a material substantially malleable and ductile (col. 3, lines 53-55, moldable stiffener means 14 being a metal strip, where metal is both malleable and ductile); and a material substantially composed of aluminum; the first portion can be folded into a plane that is approximately normal to a plane assumed by the deflector shield 12 (annotated fig. A, where the bottom band/first portion is folded to accommodate the peak of the nose, which extends and protrudes approximately normal to the flat plane of the body of the panel 12, since the nose protrudes outwards from the face); the second portion 14 has a surface on which the first portion is attached; and some of the second portion 14 is embedded within the first portion (annotated fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 32-47, moldable stiffener 14 is secured to the lower portion of the transparent material 12 by being encapsulated with heat-activated tape; thus, if the heat-activated tape is interpreted to form part of the claimed first portion, then the stiffener 14 is embedded within the first portion and the first portion surrounds both inner and outer surfaces of the second portion 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the eyes safety shield accessory for eyewear of the patent such that the second portion comprises at least one of: a material substantially malleable and ductile; and a material is substantially composed of aluminum; the first portion can be folded into a plane that is approximately normal to a plane assumed by the deflector shield; the second portion has a surface on which the first portion is attached; and at least some of the second portion is embedded within the first portion, as taught by Boyce, to maintain the structure and seal of the device over the nose while still conforming to the protrusion of the nose.
The patent in view of Boyce is silent on the first portion comprising at least one of: a material substantially formed by trapping pockets of gas in a liquid so as to form cells; and a material is substantially composed of a solid foam material.
However, Ward teaches an analogous first portion 5 for conforming to the nose (figs. 2 and 3 and col. 2, lines 57-58) comprising at least one of: a material substantially formed by trapping pockets of gas in a liquid so as to form cells; and a material 23 is substantially composed of a solid foam material (figs. 2 and 2 and col. 3, line 64-col. 4, line 7, the nose portion 5 comprises a foam strip 23 attached to a malleable stiffener 24, similar to Boyce’s device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the first portion of the patent in view of Boyce to comprise at least one of: a material substantially formed by trapping pockets of gas in a liquid so as to form cells; and a material is substantially composed of a solid foam material, as taught by Ward, to provide additional sealing and comfort to the nose area when using a metal strip.
Regarding claim 23, the patent in view of Boyce further in view of Ward discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Claim 14 of the patent anticipates the entirety of the claim.
Regarding claim 24, the patent in view of Boyce further in view of Ward discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Claim 15 of the patent anticipates the entirety of the claim.
Regarding claim 25, the patent in view of Boyce further in view of Ward discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Claim 16 of the patent anticipates the entirety of the claim.
Regarding claim 26, the patent in view of Boyce further in view of Ward discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
Claim 11 of the patent anticipates the entirety of the claim.
Regarding claim 27, the patent in view of Boyce further in view of Ward discloses the claimed invention as discussed above.
The patent is silent on the first and second portions being flexible so as to be formable into a nose clip strip conformable to and in contact with: the nose of a wearer wearing the eyewear; and left and right cheek portions adjacent to the nose of the wearer wearing the eyewear.
However, Boyce further teaches the first and second portions being flexible so as to be formable into a nose clip strip conformable to and in contact with: the nose of a wearer wearing the eyewear; and left and right cheek portions adjacent to the nose of the wearer wearing the eyewear (figs. 1 and 1A and col. 4, lines 32-37, the moldable stiffener 14 and lower band/first portion are bent together to conform to the nose and cheeks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the first and second portions of the patent in view of Boyce further in view of Ward to be flexible so as to be formable into a nose clip strip conformable to and in contact with: the nose of a wearer wearing the eyewear; and left and right cheek portions adjacent to the nose of the wearer wearing the eyewear, as taught by Boyce, to comfortable seal the device over the nose and prevent ingress of unwanted particles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Johnson US 4,821,340 discloses a face shield 10 connected to and overlapping eyewear 31 (fig. 4)
Horowitz et al. US 5,697,100 discloses a nose and cheek warmer connected to and overlapping goggles (fig. 3)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE J LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7303. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, ALIREZA NIA can be reached at (571)270-3076. 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.
/MICHELLE J LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights