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
The applicant has amended their application as follows:
Amended: 1
Cancelled: None
Added: None
Therefore, claims 1-3 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the Office has to respectfully disagree with the argument that Reichow does not disclose the limitation “so that a middle portion of the viewing window is clear to give user a clear sight line through the viewing window”. Although Reichow discloses a heads-up displays 615 and 625 at the center of the glasses (Reichow; Fig. 6) as argued by the applicant, however, the clear space around the heads up display 615 and 625 would read on the limitation “a middle portion of the viewing window is clear to give user a clear sight line through the viewing window”. Furthermore, Reichow clearly discloses that the numbers and locations of the heads up displays could be varied without departing from the scope of their invention (Reichow; Para. 0073). Therefore, it is merely a result effective variable to have fewer heads up displays.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Reichow discloses a wearable device that has multiple heads-up displays to vary the quantity and/or quality of visual information provided to the user in order to improve the physical skills (Reichow; Para. 0005). And, Vettese discloses a heads up display system with a respiratory mask for the use by the firefighters during fire. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teaching of Vettese to include a respiratory mask in the heads up display system of Reichow for the use by the firefighters during fire.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). It was within the knowledge of ordinary skill in the art to use a heads-up display in a respiratory mask for firefighter’s use at the time the claimed invention was made.
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) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reichow (US 2016/0275805 A1, hereinafter “Reichow”) in view of Vettese et al. (US 2020/0366872 A1, hereinafter “Vettese”).
As to claim 1, Reichow (Fig. 6) discloses a goggle (600), comprising:
a) an enclosure (605) including a viewing window (610), and
b) a first heads-up display (611) and a second heads-up display (619) disposed on an upper portion and a lower portion of the viewing window (610, 620), respectively, so that a middle portion of the viewing window (portion between 611 and 619) is clear to give a user a clear sight line through the viewing window (Para. 0026, 0073).
Reichow does not expressly disclose the enclosure for being attached to a user’s face to seal the user’s eyes from smoke.
However, Vettese (Fig. 1) teaches the enclosure (9) for being attached to a user’s face (100) to seal the user’s eyes from smoke (Para. 0004, 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Vettese to include a protective helmet in the device disclosed by Reichow. The motivation would have been to provide the protection to the user (Vettese; Para. 0041).
As to claim 2, Reichow (Fig. 6) discloses the goggle as in claim 1, and further comprising a third heads-up display (621) and a fourth heads-up display (629) disposed on another upper portion and another lower portion of the viewing window (620), respectively, so that a middle portion of the viewing window is clear to give a user a clear sight line through the viewing window (Para. 0026, 0073).
As to claim 3, Reichow (Fig. 6) discloses the goggle as in claim 2, wherein the first (611), second (619), third (621) and fourth heads-up displays (629) are disposed inside the enclosure (605).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant‘s disclosure.
Hacimeroglu et al. (US 2020/0147418 A1) discloses a heads up display for first aid responders (Fig. 8).
Partridge et al. (US 10,921,597 B2) discloses a heads up display outside a breather mask (Fig. 7).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BIPIN GYAWALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 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, Will Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
BIPIN GYAWALI
Examiner
Art Unit 2625
/BIPIN GYAWALI/Examiner, Art Unit 2625