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
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 10/16/2025, claims 1, 3-6, 13-16, 20-21 are amended. Claims 2, 7-12 are canceled. Claims 41-49 are new. Claims 1, 3-6, 13-16, 20-21, and 41-49 are presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome some of the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 112(b), but not all of them, and it has introduced new ones.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented objections to the claims, and it has introduced new ones.
Applicant’s amendment has rendered the previously presented interpretations under 35 USC 112(f) moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objections to the drawings, it appears that the drawings that were submitted on 9/24/2025 would overcome the previously presented drawing objections, however the amendment was not entered as per the Notice of Non-compliant amendment mailed 10/16/2025. The drawing objections have therefore been maintained and the Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant resubmit the drawing amendment.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 14, Applicant submits that the claim has been amended as Examiner suggested; however, the part of the claim that was identified as unclear in the previously presented rejection has not been amended. The rejection has therefore been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previously presented 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In light of Applicant’s amendment, which has changed the scope of the claims, new prior art has been identified and applied, as described in the rejections below.
Applicant submits that the dependent claims are allowable based on their dependency from the independent claims; however, as described in the arguments above and rejections below, the independent claims are not allowable. Therefore, the dependent claims remain rejected.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following informalities:
Figure 7 has floating numbers 64, 60A and 5. It is unclear what these numbers refer to. See page 3 of Office Action mailed 3/26/2025.
Figures 12A-12D have reference numbers 118B and 124 which are not in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 41 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “front and mid scalp” in line 18 should likely be “frontal and mid scalp”.
Further regarding claim 1, “a forehead” in line 23 should be “the forehead”.
Regarding claim 41, “a forehead” in line 21 should be “the forehead”.
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 1, 3-6, 13-16, 20-21, 41-29 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 1, the claim recites the limitation “a transparent panel for protective coverage of a facial region of a user’s head in visually unobstructive fashion”. It is unclear what is meant by “in visually unobstructive fashion”. Is this merely describing a result of the fact that the panel is transparent? If so, it is unclear why the additional description was needed. For the purposes of examination, if the panel is transparent then it will be considered to be “visually unobstructive” insofar as described by the claim.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “during donning of the face and head shield combination to achieve combined coverage of said front and mid scalp by the face shield extension”. This limitation is unclear for multiple reasons. Firstly, it is unclear what the “face and head shield combination” is because the preamble recites “a face and head shield assembly”, not a combination, and there isn’t a head shield recited explicitly in the body of the claim, so it is unclear whether this is referring to the “face and head shield assembly” (i.e., the entire invention defined by the preamble) or perhaps it is referring to the combination of the face shield and the face shield extension. Secondly, it is unclear what exactly is supposed to occur “during donning” in order “to achieve” the results described by the claim because the face shield extension alone was already described as being “sized to accommodate at least both a frontal and mid scalp of a user’s head”, so it is unclear what “combined coverage of said front and mid scalp” is being achieved since there doesn’t appear to need to be any combination of parts to achieve coverage of those areas. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as an intended use, and if the prior art meets all previously recited structural limitations of the claim, it will be held to read on this limitation as well.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “wherein a lower marginal area of a frontal region of the shell that is worn anteriorly of a forehead of the user’s head in the working position of the face shield extension is coupled, at an internal side of the shell that faces inwardly into said hollow interior space, to an outer side of the upper marginal area on the panel of said face shield to secure said shell thereto in the working position”. This limitation is unclear due to the use of commas which break up the limitation and appear to be functioning similarly to a parenthetical phrase, however in that case then it is unclear whether the “at an internal side of the shell that faces inwardly into said hollow interior space” is actually a requirement of the claim or if it is non-essential. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as requiring that the interior side of a lower area of the shell is coupled to the exterior side of an upper area of the transparent panel.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation “relative to which a ceiling of the airflow channel is of elevated relation”. This limitation is unclear because “relative to” and “of elevated relation” are both relational phrases, but only one relationship appears to be described. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as “relative to which a ceiling of the airflow channel is elevated”.
Regarding claim 41, the claim recites the limitation “a transparent panel for protective coverage of a facial region of a user’s head in visually unobstructive fashion”. It is unclear what is meant by “in visually unobstructive fashion”. Is this merely describing a result of the fact that the panel is transparent? If so, it is unclear why the additional description was needed. For the purposes of examination, if the panel is transparent then it will be considered to be “visually unobstructive” insofar as described by the claim.
Further regarding claim 41, the claim recites the limitation “during donning of the face and head shield combination to achieve combined coverage of said frontal and mid scalp by the face shield extension”. This limitation is unclear for multiple reasons. Firstly, it is unclear what the “face and head shield combination” is because the preamble recites “a face and head shield assembly”, not a combination, and there isn’t a head shield recited explicitly in the body of the claim, so it is unclear whether this is referring to the “face and head shield assembly” (i.e., the entire invention defined by the preamble) or perhaps it is referring to the combination of the face shield and the face shield extension. Secondly, it is unclear what exactly is supposed to occur “during donning” in order “to achieve” the results described by the claim because the face shield extension alone was already described as being “sized to accommodate at least both a frontal and mid scalp of a user’s head”, so it is unclear what “combined coverage of said front and mid scalp” is being achieved since there doesn’t appear to need to be any combination of parts to achieve coverage of those areas. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as an intended use, and if the prior art meets all previously recited structural limitations of the claim, it will be held to read on this limitation as well.
Further regarding claim 41, the claim recites the limitation “wherein a lower marginal area of a frontal region of the shell that is worn anteriorly of a forehead of the user’s head in the working position of the face shield extension is configured, at an internal side of the shell that faces inwardly into said hollow interior space, for selective coupling to an outer side of the upper marginal area on the panel of said face shield to secure said shell thereto in the working position”. This limitation is unclear due to the use of commas which break up the limitation and appear to be functioning similarly to a parenthetical phrase, however in that case then it is unclear whether the “at an internal side of the shell that faces inwardly into said hollow interior space” is actually a requirement of the claim or if it is non-essential. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as requiring that the interior side of a lower area of the shell is configured for selective coupling to the exterior side of an upper area of the transparent panel.
Regarding claim 43, the claim recites the limitation “relative to which a ceiling of the airflow channel is of elevated relation”. This limitation is unclear because “relative to” and “of elevated relation” are both relational phrases, but only one relationship appears to be described. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as “relative to which a ceiling of the airflow channel is elevated”.
Regarding claim 48, the claim recites the limitation “a transparent panel for protective coverage of a facial region of a user’s head in visually unobstructive fashion”. It is unclear what is meant by “in visually unobstructive fashion”. Is this merely describing a result of the fact that the panel is transparent? If so, it is unclear why the additional description was needed. For the purposes of examination, if the panel is transparent then it will be considered to be “visually unobstructive” insofar as described by the claim.
Further regarding claim 48, the claim recites the limitation “during donning of the face and head shield combination to achieve combined coverage of said frontal and mid scalp by the face shield extension”. This limitation is unclear for multiple reasons. Firstly, it is unclear what the “face and head shield combination” is because the preamble recites “a face and head shield assembly”, not a combination, and there isn’t a head shield recited explicitly in the body of the claim, so it is unclear whether this is referring to the “face and head shield assembly” (i.e., the entire invention defined by the preamble) or perhaps it is referring to the combination of the face shield and the face shield extension. Secondly, it is unclear what exactly is supposed to occur “during donning” in order “to achieve” the results described by the claim because the face shield extension alone was already described as being “sized to accommodate at least both a frontal and mid scalp of a user’s head”, so it is unclear what “combined coverage of said front and mid scalp” is being achieved since there doesn’t appear to need to be any combination of parts to achieve coverage of those areas. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as an intended use, and if the prior art meets all previously recited structural limitations of the claim, it will be held to read on this limitation as well.
Further regarding claim 48, the claim recites the limitation “wherein a lower marginal area of a frontal region of the shell that is coupled or couplable, at an interior side thereof, an outer side of the upper marginal area on the panel of said face shield to secure said shell thereto in the working position”. This limitation is unclear due to the use of commas which break up the limitation and appear to be functioning similarly to a parenthetical phrase, however in that case then it is unclear whether the “at an interior side thereof” is actually a requirement of the claim or if it is non-essential. Additionally, it appears that there is a preposition missing because it is unclear what the lower marginal area of the shell is coupled or couplable to. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as requiring that the interior side of a lower area of the shell is coupled or couplable to the exterior side of an upper area of the transparent panel.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiency by nature of dependency.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritchey (US 5067174) in view of Reese (US 5553608).
Regarding claim 1 as best understood by Examiner, Ritchey discloses: A face and head shield assembly comprising: a face shield (13, 16) comprising: a transparent panel (clear plastic visor 13) for protective coverage of a facial region of a user's head in visually unobstructive fashion in a worn position of said face shield (the visor is clear/transparent, so it is understood to be visually unobstructive insofar as claimed); padding (felt pad 14) that lines an inner side of the panel at an upper marginal area thereof that neighbours an upper boundary edge of the panel to bear against a forehead of the user's head in said worn position of the face shield (see figure 2; “attached to the visor and extending across the upper length thereof, as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 is a felt pad 14 which may be attached to the visor with an adhesive or may also be sewn to the visor such that the visor does not present a sharp edge or an uncomfortable region along the user’s forehead when the apparatus is in use” column 2, line 66-column 3, line 4); a face shield extension embodied separately of the face shield and comprising: a shell (head covering 11) of predetermined self-sustaining shape and at least partially dome-like form that delimits a hollow interior space sized to accommodate at least both a frontal and mid scalp of a user's head in a working position of said device face shield extension (the head covering “essentially has the shape of a bubble” column 2, line 45 and “extends over the entire top of the user’s head” column 2, line 40) assembled with the face shield and worn therewith in the worn position thereof (see figure 1 and 2), said shell having a boundary edge (lower edge of the elastic band 12) spanning around said hollow interior space at an open side thereof through which the user's head is receivable into said hollow interior space, during donning of the face and head shield combination to achieve combined coverage of said front and mid scalp by the face shield extension (the head covering “extends over the entire top of the user’s head” column 2, line 40, so it would have coverage of the front/mid scalp when worn); and a flexible strap attached to the face shield (strap 18), independently of the face shield extension (see figure 1; the strap 18 is not directly attached to the head covering 11); and wherein a lower marginal area of a frontal region of the shell that is worn anteriorly of a forehead of the user's head in the working position of the face shield extension is coupled, at an internal side of the shell that faces inwardly into said hollow interior space, to an outer side of the upper marginal area on the panel of said face shield to secure said shell thereto in the working position, in a manner cooperatively supported by the panel and the flexible strap (see figure 2, which shows the inner side of the shell (11) is attached to the outer side of the face shield (13)).
Ritchey does not explicitly teach: the strap spans snugly around a rear of the user's head to support the face shield in said worn position.
However, Reese teaches a face shield with a strap (216) that spans snugly around a rear of the user’s head to support the face shield in a worn position (“ties 116 and 118 may be replaced by continuous loop of resilient material 216 as shown in FIG. 8” column 11, lines 31-32; see figure 8, see also figures 1 and 9 showing how the strap can be worn around the rear of the user’s head).
Reese teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of face shields. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the ear straps of Ritchey with a strap that extends around the rear of the user’s head when worn, as taught by Reese, in order to “[enhance] the fluid barrier formed by the [mask] and the wearer’s face” (Reese, column 11, lines 35-37) and to allow the strap to be worn in different ways (see Reese, column 11, lines 37-38, which states “loop 216 may be placed about the head of the wearer 14 as shown in either Fig. 1 or Fig. 9”). Further, using a strap about the rear of the user’s head instead of ear loops reduces the strain and pressure on the user’s ears which would make the entire assembly more comfortable to wear for long periods of time.
Regarding claim 3, Ritchey as modified discloses: The assembly of claim 1 wherein the face shield extension is coupled to the face shield solely at the lower marginal area of the frontal region of the shell (see figure 2, which shows the inner side of the shell (11) is attached to the outer side of the face shield (13); this is the only location where the face shield is attached to the face shield extension).
Regarding claim 4, Ritchey as modified discloses: The assembly of claim 1 comprising one or more pieces of fastening material by which said lower marginal area of the shell is coupled to the upper marginal area on the panel of the face shield (Ritchey, “a clear plastic visor which is either glued or sewn to the head covering 11” column 2, lines 47-48; Examiner notes that either glue or a thread used for sewing constitutes “one or more pieces” of fastening material insofar as claimed as they are both materials that are used to fasten the shell and face shield).
Regarding claim 41 as best understood by Examiner, Ritchey discloses: A face and head shield assembly comprising: a face shield (13, 16) comprising: a transparent panel (clear plastic visor 13) for protective coverage of a facial region of a user's head in visually unobstructive fashion in a worn position of said face shield (the visor is clear/transparent, so it is understood to be visually unobstructive insofar as claimed); padding (felt pad 14) for lining an inner side of the panel at an upper marginal area thereof that neighbours an upper boundary edge of the panel to bear against a forehead of the user's head in said worn position of the face shield (see figure 2; “attached to the visor and extending across the upper length thereof, as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3 is a felt pad 14 which may be attached to the visor with an adhesive or may also be sewn to the visor such that the visor does not present a sharp edge or an uncomfortable region along the user’s forehead when the apparatus is in use” column 2, line 66-column 3, line 4); a face shield extension embodied separately of the face shield and comprising a shell (head covering 11) of predetermined self-sustaining shape and at least partially dome-like form that delimits a hollow interior space sized to accommodate at least both a frontal and mid scalp of a user's head in a working position of said face shield extension (the head covering “essentially has the shape of a bubble” column 2, line 45 and “extends over the entire top of the user’s head” column 2, line 40) assembled with the face shield and worn therewith in the worn position thereof (see figure 1 and 2), said shell having a boundary edge (lower edge of the elastic band 12) spanning around said hollow interior space at an open side thereof through which the user's head is receivable into said hollow interior space, during donning of the face and head shield combination to achieve combined coverage of said frontal and mid scalp by the face shield extension (the head covering “extends over the entire top of the user’s head” column 2, line 40, so it would have coverage of the front/mid scalp when worn); and a flexible strap attached or attachable to the face shield (strap 18), independently of the face shield extension (see figure 1; the strap 18 is not directly attached to the head covering 11); and wherein a lower marginal area of a frontal region of the shell that is worn anteriorly of a forehead of the user's head in the working position of the face shield extension is configured, at an internal side of the shell that faces inwardly into said hollow interior space, for selective coupling to an outer side of the upper marginal area on the panel of said face shield to secure said shell thereto in the working position, in a manner cooperatively supported by the panel and the flexible strap (see figure 2, which shows the inner side of the shell (11) is attached to the outer side of the face shield (13)).
Ritchey does not explicitly teach: the strap spans snugly around a rear of the user's head to support the face shield in said worn position.
However, Reese teaches a face shield with a strap (216) that spans snugly around a rear of the user’s head to support the face shield in a worn position (“ties 116 and 118 may be replaced by continuous loop of resilient material 216 as shown in FIG. 8” column 11, lines 31-32; see figure 8, see also figures 1 and 9 showing how the strap can be worn around the rear of the user’s head).
Reese teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of face shields. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the ear straps of Ritchey with a strap that extends around the rear of the user’s head when worn, as taught by Reese, in order to “[enhance] the fluid barrier formed by the [mask] and the wearer’s face” (Reese, column 11, lines 35-37) and to allow the strap to be worn in different ways (see Reese, column 11, lines 37-38, which states “loop 216 may be placed about the head of the wearer 14 as shown in either Fig. 1 or Fig. 9”). Further, using a strap about the rear of the user’s head instead of ear loops reduces the strain and pressure on the user’s ears which would make the entire assembly more comfortable to wear for long periods of time.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritchey/Reese in view of Brown, II (US 2022/0211126), hereinafter “Brown”.
Regarding claim 5, Ritchey as modified contemplates making the visor removably attached to the head cover (see Ritchey, column 2, lines 50-55), but does not explicitly disclose: The assembly of claim 4 wherein said one or more pieces of fastening material comprise mating pieces of hook and loop fastener.
However, Brown teaches a headwear/face shield combination in which the face shield is secured to the headwear using one or more fasteners, and specifically Brown teaches “As used herein, the term “fastener” refers generally to one or more of an adhesive (including but not limited to glue and/or epoxy), tape, ultrasonic welding, thermal welding, hook and loop fasteners, physical fasteners (including but not limited to staples, push pins, split pins, clips, and combinations of bolts and nuts), and fastening elements (such as integrally formed fastening elements)” (paragraph 216).
Brown teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of headwear with face shields. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use hook and loop fasteners to attach the face shield to the headwear of Ritchey, as taught by Brown, because it would have been the simple substitution of one known fastener (glue) for another (hook and loop fasteners) that would yield only the predictable result of attaching the face shield to the headwear (see Brown, paragraph 216). Further, using removable hook and loop fasteners would “[allow] the visor 13 to be disconnected from the head covering 11, further encouraging the process of easy removal of the protective headgear without contamination of the wearer (Ritchey, column 2, lines 57-60).
Regarding claim 6, Ritchey as modified does not explicitly disclose: The assembly of 4 wherein said one or more pieces of fastening material comprise double sided adhesive tape.
However, Brown teaches a headwear/face shield combination in which the face shield is secured to the headwear using one or more fasteners, and specifically Brown teaches that double-sided tape is a type of adhesive that is interchangeable with and equivalent to glue (“an adhesive such as double-sided tape 454 is placed between the support members 422a, 422b and the headgear 414 […] In other embodiments, adhesives such as glue or single sided tape are be used” paragraph 263).
Brown teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of headwear with face shields. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use double-sided tape to attach the face shield to the headwear of Ritchey, as taught by Brown, because it would have been the simple substitution of one known adhesive (glue) for another (double-sided tape) that would yield only the predictable result of attaching the face shield to the headwear (see Brown, paragraph 263).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 48 (and dependent claim 49) would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 13-16, 20-21, 42-47 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 48 (and dependent claim 49 by nature of dependency), the prior art of record, namely Ritchey as modified by Reese, teaches the limitations of the claim (see rejections of claims 1 and 41 above, which have similar limitations) except for “an airflow channel defined on an interior side of said scalp section that runs lengthwise thereof and ultimately reaches a terminal rear end of the shell.” Although airflow may occur within the shell of Ritchey as modified, Ritchey does not teach an explicit channel for airflow with the dimensions and positioning claimed. Modifying Ritchey to have such an airflow channel would require improper hindsight reasoning based solely on Applicant’s own disclosure.
Regarding claim 13 and 42 (and dependent claims 14-16 and 43-45 by nature of dependency), the prior art of record, namely Ritchey as modified by Reese, teaches the assembly of claim 1/41 (see 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1/41 above) wherein a scalp section of the shell is joined to a top of the frontal region and spans rearward therefrom to overlie the frontal and mid scalp of the user's head (see figure 2 of Ritchey showing that the head covering 11 is joined to the top of the visor 11; “a head covering 11 […] which extends over the entire top of the user’s head” Ritchey, column 2, lines 37-40), but does not teach that the shell “has an airflow channel on an interior side of said scalp section that runs lengthwise thereof and ultimately reaches a terminal rear end of the shell”. Although airflow may occur within the shell of Ritchey as modified, Ritchey does not teach an explicit channel for airflow with the dimensions and positioning claimed. Modifying Ritchey to have such an airflow channel would require improper hindsight reasoning based solely on Applicant’s own disclosure.
Regarding claim 20 and 46, the prior art of record, namely Ritchey as modified by Reese, does not teach “a pair of forehead depressions recessed rearwardly into the frontal region of the shell above the lower marginal area thereof, and an open airflow space left between said forehead depressions within the interior space of the shell, and wherein a width of said airflow space delimited between said forehead depressions, from a widened lower end of said airflow space, tapers upwardly to a lesser width than said widened lower end”. Although airflow may occur within the shell of Ritchey as modified, Ritchey does not teach explicit depressions recessed into the shell for airflow with the dimensions, shape, and positioning claimed. Modifying Ritchey to have the claimed structure would require improper hindsight reasoning based solely on Applicant’s own disclosure.
Regarding claim 21 and 47, the prior art of record, namely Ritchey as modified by Reese, does not teach “the boundary edge of the shell comprises a front segment spanning the lower marginal area of the shell, and the boundary edge comprises, at least at some areas thereof other than said front segment, an out-turned flange thereon for use in coupling of a flexible shroud to the shell along said boundary edge, and the assembly further comprises at least one connector clip having a shape profile configured for engagement to said out-turned flange for use in attachment of a flexible shroud to the shell”. Although Ritchey does teach a boundary edge (lower edge of elastic band 12), it does not teach that the boundary edge has a specifically out-turned flange. Even if Ritchey was further modified to have a clip for attachment of various accessories or items (see Simpson US 5867874 or Allen US 5829103), neither of those references teach the out-turned flange as required by the claim. Modifying Ritchey to have the claimed structure would require improper hindsight reasoning based solely on Applicant’s own disclosure.
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 BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732