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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/06/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bouchard Fortin et al. (2018/0295926—hereinafter, Bouchard).
Regarding claim 1, Bouchard discloses a helmet (fig.1) comprising: a helmet shell (102) for receiving a head of a wearer of the helmet, the helmet shell including: a crown portion (structure of element 102), a jaw shield portion integrally connected to the crown portion, and an aperture edge (see the annotated fig.2A below) formed by the crown portion and the jaw shield portion (fig.1), a front aperture being defined by the aperture edge (the shields can be adapted to substantially close the opening 114 to effectively protect the wearer, fig.2A, 8); and a mask (120) selectively connected to the helmet shell, the mask being disposed in the front aperture (fig.1, 9), the mask being chosen from a family of masks (fig.5,9), the family of masks including at least a cold weather mask and a high vision mask (face masks 120, fig.5,9, par [0054]), all masks of the family of masks having an outer contour sized and shaped to conform to the aperture edge (fig.1,5, 9 show two face shields 120 having two different types and each face shield having an outer contour sized and shaped to conform to the aperture edge of the helmet).
PNG
media_image1.png
383
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouchard Fortin et al. (2018/0295926—hereinafter, Bouchard).
Regarding claims 2-3, Bouchard discloses the helmet of claim 1, wherein: the mask is a first mask (120, fig.5) of the family of masks; the outer contour is a first outer contour; the helmet shell and the first mask forming a first type of helmet (fig.5); and further comprising: a second mask (120 of fig.9) of the family of masks, the second mask being selectively connectable to the helmet shell, the helmet shell and the second mask connected thereto forming a second type of helmet (fig.9); wherein a second outer contour of the second mask conforms to the aperture edge (fig.9 shows the face mask 120 having smaller an outer contour than the contour of the face mask in fig.5).
Regarding claim 4, Bouchard does not disclose the helmet of claim further comprising: a third mask of the family of masks, the third mask being selectively connectable to the helmet shell, a third outer contour of the third mask conforming to the aperture edge, the helmet shell and the third mask connected said helmet, the third type of helmet having a different application than the first type of helmet and the second type of helmet. However, Bouchard further discloses par [0054] states that the shield can be a visor, fig.5 or goggles fig.9. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a thirst mask having a third out contour is configured to conforming to the aperture edge as the claimed invention, such modification would have considered a mere of duplication in part involves routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY K TRIEU whose telephone number is (571)270-3495. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4.
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
/Timothy K Trieu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732