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
Examiner acknowledges the reply filed on 5/27/2026 in which claim 3 has been amended. Currently claims 1-14 are pending for examination in this application. The examiner notes that this action is a Non-final as a new secondary reference is relied upon. Since the claims have not been amended, the new grounds of rejection was not necessitated by amendment.
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) 1-5, 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pulver et al. (WO 00/07157) in view of Ota (JP 2015/177227 A). The examiner notes the translation of Ota provided by the examiner is relied up on in the rejection set forth below.
Regarding claim 1, Pulver discloses: A communications assembly (102) for a mask (100) (page 10, lines 4-6), the assembly comprising:
a housing (101; page 10, line 10) configured to couple to the mask (see figure 3 where 102 couples to 100; page 11, lines 3-32), the housing including:
a substrate (113; figures 3-3a);
a push-to-talk actuator (109; page 10, lines 30-31) coupled to the substrate (see figure 3; page 11, lines 1-2); and
a transceiver (112) coupled to the substrate (see figure 3).
Pulver is not explicit in the type of transceiver and thus does not explicitly disclose the transceiver is a near field communication antenna.
However, Ota teaches a communication system (abstract; page 2, paragraph 2 starting with “In the”) and thus is analogous art. Ota teaches that it is known to use a near field communication antenna (2e) for communication (last paragraph of page 5; page 3, paragraph 4 starting with “First”- paragraph 5; figure 1 shows PTT switch 2b and 2e).
It would have been obvious to have substituted the transceiver (112) of Pulver with the near filed communication antenna of Ota as both components have known functions and the substitution of one for another would yield predictable results. The courts have held the substitution of one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art supports a conclusion of non-obviousness.
Regarding claim 2, Pulver as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the NFC antenna is at least partially circumferentially disposed about a peripheral region of the substrate (112 is located around a peripheral region of 113; see figure 3)).
Regarding claim 3, Pulver further discloses a resilient membrane (106) coupled to housing and configured to engage the PTT actuator when depressed (page 13, lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 4, Pulver further discloses a bezel (seat where 106 goes as shown in figure 3), and wherein the resilient membrane (106) is at least partially retained by the bezel (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 5 Pulver further discloses, wherein when the resilient membrane (106) is disposed within the housing the resilient membrane is substantially co-planar with the housing (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Pulver discloses a mask (100) having a frame (frame can be seen in figure 3), comprising:
a housing (101; page 10, line 10) coupled to the frame (see figure 3 where 102 couples to 100; page 11, lines 3-32) (102), the housing including a communications assembly, the communications assembly including:
a substrate (113; figures 3-3a);
a push-to-talk actuator (109; page 10, lines 30-31) coupled to the substrate (see figure 3; page 11, lines 1-2); and
a transceiver (112) coupled to the substrate (see figure 3).
Pulver is not explicit in the type of transceiver and thus does not explicitly disclose the transceiver is a near field communication antenna.
However, Ota teaches a communication system (abstract; page 2, paragraph 2 starting with “In the”) and thus is analogous art. Ota teaches that it is known to use a near field communication antenna (2e) for communication (last paragraph of page 5; page 3, paragraph 4 starting with “First”- paragraph 5; figure 1 shows PTT switch 2b and 2e).
It would have been obvious to have substituted the transceiver (112) of Pulver with the near filed communication antenna of Ota as both components have known functions and the substitution of one for another would yield predictable results. The courts have held the substitution of one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art supports a conclusion of non-obviousness.
Regarding claim 9, Pulver as modified further discloses wherein the NFC antenna is at least partially circumferentially disposed about a periphery of the substrate (112 is located around a peripheral region of 113; see figure 3).
Regarding claim 10, Pulver further discloses wherein the communications assembly further includes a resilient membrane (106) coupled to housing and configured to engage the PTT actuator when depressed (page 13, lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 11, Pulver further discloses wherein the communications assembly further includes a bezel (seat where 106 goes as shown in figure 3), and wherein the resilient membrane (106) is at least partially retained by the bezel (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 12 Pulver further discloses, wherein when the resilient membrane (106) is disposed within the housing the resilient membrane is substantially co-planar with the housing (see figure 2).
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pulver et al. (WO 00/07157) in view of Ota (JP 2015/177227 A) in further view of Klinger (US 3,154,073)
Regarding claim 6, Pulver as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the housing includes at least one tab, and wherein the resilient membrane includes at least one slot configured to engage the at least one tab.
Klinger teaches a mask wherein a housing (1) includes a tab (8) and wherein a resilient membrane (3) includes at least one slot (6) configured to engage with the at least one tab (col. 1, line 65-col. 2, line 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pulver to include wherein the housing includes at least one tab, and wherein the resilient membrane includes at least one slot configured to engage the at least one tab to ensure a secure connection between the membrane and housing.
Regarding claim 13, Pulver as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the housing includes at least one tab, and wherein the resilient membrane includes at least one slot configured to engage the at least one tab.
Klinger teaches a mask wherein a housing (1) includes a tab (8) and wherein a resilient membrane (3) includes at least one slot (6) configured to engage with the at least one tab (col. 1, line 65-col. 2, line 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pulver to include wherein the housing includes at least one tab, and wherein the resilient membrane includes at least one slot configured to engage the at least one tab to ensure a secure connection between the membrane and housing.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pulver et al. (WO 00/07157) in view of Ota (JP 2015/177227 A) in further view of Von Bosch et al. (US 9,385,789 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Pulver as modified does not explicitly disclose ferrite shielding coupled to the substrate.
However, Von Bosch teaches it is known to have a ferrite shielding (505, 507) coupled to a substrate (coupled to 301 and 303 as shown by the dashed lines figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include ferrite shielding coupled to the substrate to minimize eddy currents (abstract).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pulver et al. (WO 00/07157) in view of Ota (JP 2015/177227 A) in further view of Maue et al. (WO 97/21563).
Regarding claim 14, Pulver discloses: A mask (100), comprising:
a housing (101; page 10, line 10) coupled to the mask, the housing being configured to contour an outer surface of the mask (see figure 3), the housing including a communications assembly (assembly within 101), the communications assembly including:
a substrate (113; figures 3-3a);
a push-to-talk actuator (109; page 10, lines 30-31) coupled to the substrate (see figure 3; page 11, lines 1-2); and
a resilient membrane (106) coupled to housing and configured to engage the PTT actuator when depressed (page 13, lines 5-11);
a bezel (seat where 106 goes as shown in figure 3) coupled to the housing and configured to retain the resilient membrane (see figure 3);
a transceiver (112) circumferentially disposed about a peripheral region of the substrate (see figure 3).
Pulver is not explicit in the type of transceiver and thus does not explicitly disclose the transceiver is a near field communication antenna.
However, Ota teaches a communication system (abstract; page 2, paragraph 2 starting with “In the”) and thus is analogous art. Ota teaches that it is known to use a near field communication antenna (2e) for communication (last paragraph of page 5; page 3, paragraph 4 starting with “First”- paragraph 5; figure 1 shows PTT switch 2b and 2e).
It would have been obvious to have substituted the transceiver (112) of Pulver with the near filed communication antenna of Ota as both components have known functions and the substitution of one for another would yield predictable results. The courts have held the substitution of one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art supports a conclusion of non-obviousness.
Pulver as modified does not explicitly disclose a film disposed between the PTT actuator and the resilient membrane.
However, Maue teaches it is known to provide a film (29) disposed between the PTT actuator (145) and the resilient membrane (147) (see figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pulver such that there is a film disposed between the PTT actuator and the resilient membrane for providing an aesthetically pleasing and environmentally protective layer which covers the actuator (page 14, lines 4-10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art of Osterhout has been considered but the arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Osterhout.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: [0134]-[0150] of Stevens et al. (US 2015/0136158 A1) and Yosui (WO 2015/016353 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:00pm CT.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/VICTORIA MURPHY/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights