DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/8/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 5/8/2026, claims 1, 14, 41, 43, 48 are amended. Claims 1, 3-6, 13-16, 20-21, 41-49 are currently pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented objections to the drawings.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome some of the previously presented rejections over 35 USC 112(b), but not all of them, and it has introduced new ones.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 48, Applicant states that the claim was amended to remove reference to donning the face and head shield combination and the combined coverage of the front and mid scalp; however, the claim still contains that limitation. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection has therefore been maintained.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1 and 41, Applicant argues that the bouffant cap of Ritchey is not of “self-sustaining” shape. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The term “self-sustaining” is broad and can reasonably encompass an allegedly “floppy” hat such as the bouffant cap of Ritchey. For example, if the cap is placed on a table on its side and left there, the shape would not spontaneously change. Further, Applicant alleges that the cap of Ritchey is “completely incapable of self-sustaining a dome-like shape” (Remarks, page 10), which Examiner submits is not what is required by the claim. The claim requires “a shell of predetermined self-sustaining shape and at least partially dome-like form”. The “dome-like” aspect is separate from “self-sustaining”, and moreover the shell only has to be “at least partially dome-like” which does not require that the shell is specifically a dome (only dome-like, or similar to a dome to some extent, and in fact only at least partially similar to a dome). Examiner maintains that the cap of Ritchey teaches a shell that has a predetermined (at some point the shape was determined by someone in the design process, therefore it is predetermined) self-sustaining (it can maintain its shape absent external force being applied to it) shape and at least partially dome-like form (the form of the cap is at least partially dome-like as it at least partially resembles a dome).
Applicant further argues that the new limitations regarding the “fixed geometry” of the boundary edge and the “fixed shape and size” of the opening distinguish over the cap of Ritchey. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, these limitations introduce issues under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b), described below. It is not clear from the claim or the specification what it means for the boundary edge and opening to have a “fixed geometry” or “fixed shape and size”. The cap of Ritchey can be considered to have a boundary edge with a “fixed geometry” and an opening with a “fixed shape and size” insofar as can be understood from the claim as written because, for example, when it is not being worn it has a fixed shape and size and does not spontaneously change shape/size/geometry.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly added limitations in regards to the flexible strap 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 introduced new limitations that have not been previously searched or considered, the search has been updated and new prior art has been identified and applied, as described in the rejections below.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the newly added limitation “said shell having a boundary edge spanning in a fixed geometry around said hollow interior space at an open side thereof at which said boundary edge delimits an opening of fixed shape and size” in claims 1 and 41. The specification does not describe anything regarding the geometry of the boundary edge or the shape and size of the opening being “fixed”.
Claim Objections
Claim 49 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim has the incorrect status identifier and markup. The claim is marked “new” and includes markup, but it is the same as previously presented and therefore should have the status identifier “previously presented”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 41 (and claims 3-6, 13-16, 20-21, and 42-47, at least for depending from a rejected base claim) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “said shell having a boundary edge spanning in a fixed geometry around said hollow interior space at an open side thereof at which said boundary edge delimits an opening of fixed shape and size”. There is insufficient support for this limitation in the disclosure as originally filed. Page 7 of the instant specification states: “By self-sustaining, it is mean that the shell will normally maintain this predetermined default shape in the absence of any external force exerted on the shell. That being said, the shell may be flexible or pliable, and thus capable of being deviated from this predetermined default shape in the presence of such external forces, even under manually applied forces of relatively low magnitude. This pliable character may be at least partially attributed to a relatively thin-walled constitution of the preferably vacuum formed or thermoformed shell, thus differentiating this non-rigid, light-weight, low-cost, one-time-use disposable shell from the significantly rigid plastics used in the production of hard hats and other impact-protective helmets”. From this disclosure, it is apparent that the shell does not actually have a fixed geometry and the opening is not of a fixed size and shape, as the shell is described as being flexible, pliable, and capable of deviating from its original shape under applied force. Page 21 does disclose that the shell may be rigid (“In any embodiments, whether disposable or reusable and flexible or rigid, the shell can be made sufficiently large to be one-size-fits-all, or various different sizes (e.g. small, medium, large) may be made to better accommodate head 10 size variability.”); however, the use of the term “rigid” alone in the specification is not sufficient to support the much more specific language used in the claim regarding alleged “fixed geometry” and “fixed shape and size”. The specification does not describe anything regarding the geometry of the boundary edge or opening.
Regarding claim 41, the claim recites the limitation “said shell having a boundary edge spanning in a fixed geometry around said hollow interior space at an open side thereof at which said boundary edge delimits an opening of fixed shape and size”. There is insufficient support for this limitation in the disclosure as originally filed. Page 7 of the instant specification states: “By self-sustaining, it is mean that the shell will normally maintain this predetermined default shape in the absence of any external force exerted on the shell. That being said, the shell may be flexible or pliable, and thus capable of being deviated from this predetermined default shape in the presence of such external forces, even under manually applied forces of relatively low magnitude. This pliable character may be at least partially attributed to a relatively thin-walled constitution of the preferably vacuum formed or thermoformed shell, thus differentiating this non-rigid, light-weight, low-cost, one-time-use disposable shell from the significantly rigid plastics used in the production of hard hats and other impact-protective helmets”. From this disclosure, it is apparent that the shell does not actually have a fixed geometry and the opening is not of a fixed size and shape, as the shell is described as being flexible, pliable, and capable of deviating from its original shape under applied force. Page 21 does disclose that the shell may be rigid (“In any embodiments, whether disposable or reusable and flexible or rigid, the shell can be made sufficiently large to be one-size-fits-all, or various different sizes (e.g. small, medium, large) may be made to better accommodate head 10 size variability.”); however, the use of the term “rigid” alone in the specification is not sufficient to support the much more specific language used in the claim regarding alleged “fixed geometry” and “fixed shape and size”. The specification does not describe anything regarding the geometry of the boundary edge or opening.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 41, 48 (and claims 3-6, 13-16, 20-21, 42-47, and 49, at least for depending from a rejected base claim) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “a flexible strap having two opposing ends thereof attached to the face shield independently of the face shield extension at locations situated respectfully proximate two opposing sides of the face shield at the upper marginal area thereof”. This limitation is unclear because “the face shield at the upper marginal area thereof” lacks antecedent basis for “the upper marginal area thereof”. The use of “thereof” is confusing in this case. As best can be understood, this is a recitation of “the upper marginal area of the face shield”. However, the claim has not defined an upper marginal area of the face shield. There is a previous recitation of an upper marginal area of the transparent panel, but it is unclear whether this later recitation of “the upper marginal area thereof” is referring to the previously recited upper marginal area of the transparent panel or if this is referring to a different upper marginal area of the face shield.
Regarding claim 41, the claim recites the limitation “a flexible strap having two opposing ends thereof attached to the face shield independently of the face shield extension at locations situated respectfully proximate two opposing sides of the face shield at the upper marginal area thereof”. This limitation is unclear because “the face shield at the upper marginal area thereof” lacks antecedent basis for “the upper marginal area thereof”. The use of “thereof” is confusing in this case. As best can be understood, this is a recitation of “the upper marginal area of the face shield”. However, the claim has not defined an upper marginal area of the face shield. There is a previous recitation of an upper marginal area of the transparent panel, but it is unclear whether this later recitation of “the upper marginal area thereof” is referring to the previously recited upper marginal area of the transparent panel or if this is referring to a different upper marginal area of the face shield.
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.
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.
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 Liu (US 2021/0401085).
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 a worn position of said face shield (“a visor covering and shielding the eyes”, abstract); 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 in a fixed geometry (Examiner notes that “fixed geometry” has not been clearly defined , as noted in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above. The edge of the band can be considered to have a fixed geometry as it does not change shape when it is not being worn, and it also does not change shape when it is being worn/positioned satisfactorily on the user’s head) around said hollow interior space at an open side thereof at which said boundary edge delimits an opening off fixed shape and size (Examiner notes that “fixed geometry” has not been clearly defined , as noted in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above. The opening can be considered to have a “fixed shape and size” as it does not change shape or size when it is not being worn, and it also does not change shape or size when it is being worn/positioned satisfactorily on the user’s head) through which the user's head is receivable into said hollow interior space (the head covering “extends over the entire top of the user’s head” column 2, line 40); 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 the 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 having two opposing ends thereof attached to the face shield at locations situated respectively proximate two opposing sides of the face shield at the upper marginal area thereof so that the padding and the flexible strap cooperatively span snugly around the user’s head at forehead level to support the face shield in said worn position.
However, Liu teaches a face mask (410) with a strap (420) having two opposing ends thereof attached to the face mask at locations situated respectively proximate two opposing sides of the face mask at the upper marginal area thereof (see figure 10; “the ends of the straps 420 may be fixed to mask 410 at closure points 432a, via sonic welding, glue, etc. thereby fixing the ends of the straps 420 relative to the panel 230” paragraph 94) so that strap spans snugly around the user’s head at forehead level to support the face mask in said worn position. (Examiner notes that the italicized limitations are intended use limitations, and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114(II). As Liu teaches the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written. The straps are flexible and adjustable in length, and are thus readily understood as being capable of being worn such that the strap spans snugly around the user’s head at forehead level in the worn position.)
Liu teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of personal protective equipment for the face. 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 top and bottom straps that extend around the rear of the user’s head when worn, as taught by Liu, in order to “improve the fit of the flexible mask 10/110/210/310/410 on the face of the user and improve the snugness of the fit while remaining comfortable of the user” (Liu, paragraph 100). Further, using straps 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. See annotated figure 1 of Ritchey below showing the flexible strap as modified and how the attachment points are in the upper marginal area of the face shield.
PNG
media_image1.png
301
625
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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 in a fixed geometry (Examiner notes that “fixed geometry” has not been clearly defined , as noted in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above. The edge of the band can be considered to have a fixed geometry as it does not change shape when it is not being worn, and it also does not change shape when it is being worn/positioned satisfactorily on the user’s head) around said hollow interior space at an open side thereof at which said boundary edge delimits an opening off fixed shape and size (Examiner notes that “fixed geometry” has not been clearly defined , as noted in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of this claim above. The opening can be considered to have a “fixed shape and size” as it does not change shape or size when it is not being worn, and it also does not change shape or size when it is being worn/positioned satisfactorily on the user’s head) through which the user's head is receivable into said hollow interior space (the head covering “extends over the entire top of the user’s head” column 2, line 40); 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 the 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 having two opposing ends thereof attached to the face shield at locations situated respectively proximate two opposing sides of the face shield at the upper marginal area thereof so that the padding and the flexible strap cooperatively span snugly around the user’s head at forehead level to support the face shield in said worn position.
However, Liu teaches a face mask (410) with a strap (420) having two opposing ends thereof attached to the face mask at locations situated respectively proximate two opposing sides of the face mask at the upper marginal area thereof (see figure 10; “the ends of the straps 420 may be fixed to mask 410 at closure points 432a, via sonic welding, glue, etc. thereby fixing the ends of the straps 420 relative to the panel 230” paragraph 94) so that strap spans snugly around the user’s head at forehead level to support the face mask in said worn position. (Examiner notes that the italicized limitations are intended use limitations, and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114(II). As Liu teaches the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written. The straps are flexible and adjustable in length, and are thus readily understood as being capable of being worn such that the strap spans snugly around the user’s head at forehead level in the worn position.)
Liu teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of personal protective equipment for the face. 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 top and bottom straps that extend around the rear of the user’s head when worn, as taught by Liu, in order to “improve the fit of the flexible mask 10/110/210/310/410 on the face of the user and improve the snugness of the fit while remaining comfortable of the user” (Liu, paragraph 100). Further, using straps 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. See annotated figure 1 of Ritchey provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above showing the flexible strap as modified and how the attachment points are in the upper marginal area of the face shield.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritchey/Liu as applied to claim 4 above, in further 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, and 42-47 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, and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Smith (US 2021/0345705) teaches a relevant face shield.
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
/JAMESON D COLLIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights