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
Applicant’s response of 4/13/2026 is received. Claims 1 and 9 are amended and claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: par.50, lines 5-6: “to the locked position (shown as unlocked position 310 in FIG.3B”) should be revised to recite “to the locked position (shown as locked position 310 in FIG.3B”).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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. Claim 9 recites the lens lock is configured to move from the locked position to the unlocked position by sliding linearly along the face shield shell.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s claim amendments overcome the prior art of Broersma ‘802.
The specification objection of 1/9/2026 is withdrawn upon further review and the revised objection is set forth herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are allowed as the prior art of Broersma ‘802 doesn’t teach the limitations of claim 1 including the lens lock configured such that sliding movement of the lens lock from the unlocked position to the locked position creates a tensile force on the face shield lens via the locking channel, and the tensile force on the lens forces mating areas of the face shield lens onto the face shield shell.
Conclusion
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.
/KATHERINE M MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights