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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/1/25 has been entered, including the amendments to claim 1. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,992,070 in view of Broersma (U.S. 7,003,802).
The limitations of claims 1, 6, 8, and 9 are set forth in claim 1 of '070 as follows: A face shield, comprising a face shield lens comprising a locking channel; a face shield shell configured to receive the face shield lens when the face shield lens is inserted into the face shield shell, and a lens lock configured to move between a locked position in which the lens lock is configured to engage the locking channel of the face shield lens to secure the face shield lens to the face shield shell and an unlocked position in which the lens lock is configured to disengage the locking channel of the face shield lens to permit insertion and removal of the face lens to and from the face shield shell, the face shield shell further comprising a lens channel, the lens channel configured to retain a portion of the face shield lens when the face shield lens is in the inserted position, wherein the lens channel further comprises a lens centering contour, wherein the lens further comprises a channel centering indent and the lens centering contour abuts the channel centering indent thereby aligning the lens within the lens channel, and the lens lock is configured to move from the locked position to the unlocked position by sliding along the face shield shell. However, claim 1 of ‘070 doesn't recite remaining limitations of the claim- "wherein the lens lock is configured such that 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.” Broersma teaches a face shield 1 (Figures 14-16), comprising: a face shield lens 4 comprising a locking channel 50; a face shield shell 2 configured to receive the face shield lens 4 when the face shield lens 4 is inserted into the face shield shell 2; and a lens lock 52 configured to move between: a locked position in which the lens lock is configured to engage the locking channel 50 of the face shield lens 4 to secure the face shield lens to the face shield shell (Fig.15 shows the nib’s sloped surface 59 for facilitating snapping the lens 4 into place and automatically locking it); and an unlocked position in which the lens lock 52 is configured to disengage the locking channel 50 of the face shield lens 4 to permit insertion of the face shield lens 4 to the face shield shell 2 and removal of the face shield lens 4 from the face shield shell 2, wherein the lens lock 49 is configured such that movement of the lens lock 52 from the unlocked position to the locked position to engage the locking channel 50 creates a tensile force on the face shield lens 4 via the locking channel 50 and the tensile force on the lens 4 forces mating areas of the face shield lens 4 onto the face shield shell 2 as Figure 14 shows mating areas of the lens 4 forced onto the shell’s inner surface. Broersma teaches the lens lock is spring-loaded such that movement of the lens lock from the unlocked position to the locked position to engage the locking channel 50 creates a tensile force on the lens 4 via the locking channel 50, and the tensile force on the lens 4 forces mating areas of the face shield lens onto the inner surface 33 of shell 2 (“A cantilevered spring prong 57 extends laterally from a lateral surface 58 of the body to contact the frame inner surface and thereby bias the nib end 51 inwardly or medially toward a locked position”, col.3, lines 27-30). Additionally, col.1, lines 52+ disclose the lens attached to the temple areas of the mask by a simple mechanism that allows for single-handed removal that mounts on an inside surface of the mask and a self-biasing, snap-in-place function. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify claim 1 of the reference patent to recite “wherein the lens lock is configured such that 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” as Broersma teaches a spring-loaded lens lock creating a tensile force as it is moved from the unlocked position to the locked position is known in the art as a mechanism that allows for single-handed removal and insertion of the lens relative to the face shield shell.
The limitations of claim 2 are set forth in claims 1 and 2 of '070.
The limitations of claim 3 are set forth in claims 1 and 3 of '070.
The limitations of claim 4 are set forth in claims 1 and 4 of '070.
The limitations of claim 5 are set forth in claims 1 and 5 of '070.
The limitations of claim 7 are set forth in claims 1 and 6 of '070.
The limitations of claim 10 are set forth in claims 1 and 7 of '070.
The limitations of claim 11 are set forth in claim 11 of '070.
The limitations of claim 12 are set forth in claims 11 and 12 of '070.
The limitations of claim 13 are set forth in claims 11 and 13 of '070.
The limitations of claim 14 are set forth in claims 11 and 14 of '070.
The limitations of claim 15 are set forth in claims 11, 13, and 15 of '070.
The limitations of claim 16 are set forth in claims 1 and 8 of '070.
The limitations of claim 17 are set forth in claim 16 of '070.
The limitations of claim 18 are set forth in claim 16 of '070.
The limitations of claim 19 are set forth in claims 1 and 9 of '070.
The limitations of claim 20 are set forth in claims 1 and 10 of '070.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the lens lock is configured such that 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. Claim 17 recites the lens lock protrusion configured to extend in to a lens channel of the face shield shell in a first direction, wherein the lens channel is configured to receive the locking channel of the face shield lens in a second direction.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Broersma (U.S. 7,003,802). Broersma discloses the invention as claimed. For claim 1, Broersma teaches a face shield 1 (Figures 1 and 14-16), comprising: a face shield lens 4 comprising a locking channel 50; a face shield shell 2 configured to receive the face shield lens 4 when the face shield lens is inserted into the face shield shell; and a lens lock 52 configured to move between: a locked position in which the lens lock is configured to engage the locking channel of the face shield lens to secure the face shield lens to the face shield shell (Fig.15 shows the nib’s sloped surface 59 facilitates snapping the lens 4 into place and automatically locking it); and an unlocked position in which the lens lock 52 is configured to disengage the locking channel 50 of the face shield lens 4 to permit insertion of the face shield lens 4 to the face shield shell 2 and removal of the face shield lens 4 from the face shield shell 2, wherein the lens lock 49 is configured such that movement of the lens lock 52 from the unlocked position to the locked position to engage the locking channel 50 creates a tensile force on the face shield lens 4 via the locking channel 50 as the lens lock is spring-loaded and Broersma’s col.3, lines 27-30 disclose “A cantilevered spring prong 57 extends laterally from a lateral surface 58 of the body to contact the frame inner surface and thereby bias the nib end 51 inwardly or medially toward a locked position”. The tensile force on the lens 4 forces mating areas of the face shield lens 4 onto the face shield shell 2 as Figure 14 shows mating areas of the lens 4 forced onto the shell 2. Col.1, lines 52+ disclose the lens attached to the temple areas of the mask by a simple mechanism that allows for single-handed removal that mounts on an inside surface of the mask and a self-biasing, snap-in-place function.
For claim 2, Broersma teaches the face shield as defined in claim 1, wherein the face shield lens 4 is configured to be inserted and removed from the face shield shell 2 without deforming the face shield shell 2 or the face shield lens 4 as the handle end 56 is pulled inwardly and the nib 51 releases from the channel 50, and the insertion and removal of the lens 4 is not disclosed as requiring deformation of the shell or lens.
For claim 4, Broersma teaches the face shield as defined in claim 1, wherein the face shield shell 2 further comprises an upper portion, a lower portion, and two side portions; and the lens lock 52 is located on a face shield shell side portion. Figure 2 shows a full side view of one side of the shell 2 with a lens lock 52 located on a face shield shell side portion and Figure 14 shows a schematical view of the lens lock located on a shell side portion, with the lens lock disclosed as oriented at each of the temple areas of the frame/face shield shell.
For claim 5, Broersma teaches the face shield as defined in claim 4, wherein at least one lens lock 52 is
located on both of the face shield shell side portions.
For claim 9, Broersma teaches the face shield as defined in claim 1, wherein the lens lock 52 is
configured to move from the locked position to the unlocked position by sliding along the face
shield shell 2 as tang 55 and prong 57 are considered as part of shell surface 33 and the lens lock 52 is configured to move from the locked position to the unlocked position by sliding along the face shield shell 2.
For claim 10, Broersma teaches the face shield as defined in claim 1, wherein the lens lock 52
further comprises a lock pivot point 54 and the lens lock 52 is configured to rotate about the lock pivot point when moving from the locked position to the unlocked position.
For claim 18, Broersma teaches the face shield as defined in claim 1, wherein the lens lock 52
comprises a clip configured to retain the lens lock within the lens channel and to retain a
protrusion of the lens lock within the lens channel as the body of the lens lock 52 is spring-loaded to form a clip such that the protrusion 51 of the lens lock 52 is retained within the lens channel 50.
For claim 19, Broersma teaches the face shield as defined in claim 1, wherein the face shield lens 4 and the face shield shell 2 are configured to not provide an airtight seal when the face shield lens is
secured to the face shield shell via the lens lock as the inner surface 33 of the shell portion 2 is spaced from the lens 4 at least where the lens lock is positioned.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broersma '802 in view of
Merikoski et al. (Merikoski, U.S. 2011/0030114).Broersma discloses the invention substantially as
claimed but doesn't provide a thickness value for the lens and doesn't teach the face shield lens is at
least .07 inches thick. Merikoski teaches a lens paired with a helmet, the lens having a thickness of about 1 to 4 mm (.039 -.157 in.) which substantially includes thickness values within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill could have arrived at the claimed range value of at least .07 inches thick in that the thickness is considered as a results effective variable which may be optimized such that the lens is protective and transparent, and also sufficiently capable of fitting in the frame elements of the helmet, particularly since Broersma and Merikoski teach plastic lenses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Broersma’s lens to form at least .07 inches thick, as this thickness is expected to result in a transparent and protective plastic lens to adequately protect the wearer’s eyes.
Claims 6, 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broersma ‘802 in view of Calilung et al. (U.S. 10,687,981). For claim 6, Broersma discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn’t teach the face shield as defined in claim 1, wherein the face shield shell further comprises a lens channel, the lens channel configured to retain a portion of the face shield lens when the face shield lens is in the inserted position. Calilung teaches a face shield shell/frame 104 as part of a headworn article that can support one or more lenses in the wearer’s field of view including helmets and face masks (col.4, lines 60-65) with a lens 108 held interior to the frame, the frame comprising a lens channel configured to retain a portion of the face shield lens when the lens is in the inserted position as discussed in col.2, lines 35-40.
For claim 7, Broersma doesn’t teach the lens channel further comprises a lens insertion flange configured to abut against the lens to limit a distance the lens is inserted into the lens channel. Calilung’s lens insertion flange 106a or b abuts against the lens 108 to limit a distance the lens is inserted into the lens channel, as Calilung discloses “The passive retention mechanisms 106a,b can be configured such that the groove is at least partially defined by a pair of wall flanges of the frame 104.” Flanges/Mechanisms 106a,b are disclosed as disposed at any point along frame 104 and may take the form of projections, surface contours, recesses, cutouts, projections, etc. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Broersma’s face shield shell to comprise a lens channel configured to retain a portion of the face shield lens when the face shield lens is in the inserted position as Calilung teaches it’s known in the art to provide a face shield shell with a lens retained to the shell interior by a lens channel and the lens channel is expected to function as a structure to maintain the lens in the desired orientation distanced from the wearer’s eyes for protection thereof. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Broersma to provide the lens channel with a lens insertion flange configured to abut against the lens to limit a distance the lens is inserted into the lens channel, as Calilung teaches a lens insertion flange as an additional lens retention mechanism to retain the lens in the desired orientation.
For claim 17, Broersma doesn’t teach the face shield of claim 1, wherein the lens lock comprises a protrusion configured to extend into a lens channel of the face shield shell in a first direction, wherein the lens channel is configured to receive the locking channel of the lens in a second direction, engage the locking channel when the lens lock is moved along a path defined by the face shield shell to the locked position and disengage the locking channel when the lens lock is moved along the path defined by the face shield shell to the unlocked position. Broersma includes a lens channel as modified by Calilung in the rejection of claim 6 such that when the lens channel receives the lens 4, the protrusion 51 is configured to extend into a lens channel of the shell in a first direction and the lens channel is configured to receive the locking channel 50 of the lens 4 in a second direction and the protrusion is configured to engage the locking channel 50 when the lens lock is moved along a path defined by the face shield shell 2/33 to the locked position and disengage the locking channel 50 when the lens lock 52 is moved along the path defined by the face shield shell to the unlocked position. It is noted that the claim doesn’t provide further details of how the face shield defines the path, e.g. a particular face shield structure.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broersma ‘802 in view of Calilung as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Baribeau et al. (U.S. 6,102,033). Broersma discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including the face shield shell comprising a lens channel, but doesn’t teach the lens channel further comprises a lens centering contour, wherein the lens further comprises a channel centering indent and the lens centering contour abuts against the channel centering indent thereby aligning the lens within the lens channel. Baribeau teaches a lens 16 assembled to a face shield shell 14 with the lens 16 comprising a channel centering indent 22 as shown in Figure 2 for aligning and corresponding with alignment members 24 on shell 14, the alignment members may be a variety of structures including ridges (considered as equivalent to contours) and the combination of a lens centering contour and channel centering indent “permits relatively easy alignment of the lens 16 within the frame 14..”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Broersma’s lens channel to comprise a lens centering contour and the lens further comprising a channel centering indent such that the contour abuts against the channel centering indent as Baribeau teaches these corresponding structures permit relatively easy alignment of the lens within the frame.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broersma ‘802 in view of Rice et al. (Rice, US 6,896,366). Broersma discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Broersma doesn’t teach the face shield as defined in claim 1 further comprising a head seal configured to limit movement of air between a head of a user of the face shield and an environment outside of the face shield. Rice teaches a face shield comprising a head seal configured to limit movement of air between a head of a user of the face shield and an environment outside of the face shield as Rice teaches gasket 30 extends around the inside of frame portion 22 and is arranged to rest against the wearer’s face when the goggle is worn. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Broersma’s face shield to comprise a head seal configured to limit movement of air between a head of a user of the face shield and an environment outside of the face shield as taught by Rice, as the seal is expected to block debris from the wearer’s environment from entering the interior of the face shield.
For claim 16, Broersma doesn’t teach the face shield as defined in claim 1, further comprising a duct configured to direct air from a hose connector to an outlet for directing the air to a face of a wearer of the face shield. Rice teaches a face shield comprising a duct 42 for directing air to a face of a wearer of the face shield. The duct is considered as configured to direct air from a hose connector to an outlet for directing air to a face of a wearer of the face shield as the duct is part of an arrangement to mitigate fogging of the face shield lens by directing air to outlets at an upper portion of the face shield as in Figure 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Broersma to comprise a duct configured to direct air from a hose connector to an outlet for directing the air to a face of a wearer of the face shield, as Rice’s duct is part of an arrangement directing air to outlets at an upper portion of the face shield to mitigate fogging of the lens with residual air expected to be directed to a wearer’s face as the air passes directly in front of the face when the face shield is worn.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broersma ‘802 in view of O’Malley (U.S. 10,111,780). Broersma discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn’t teach the head seal comprises a molded plastic. O’Malley teaches a head seal (face gasket) 302 formed from molded plastic as in col.16, lines 8-13. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Broersma’s head seal to comprise molded plastic, as O’Malley teaches that the molded plastic material is known in the art as a suitable head seal material.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broersma ‘802 in view of Wright (U.S. 2007/0192946). For claim 13, Broersma discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn’t teach the face shield defined in claim 11, further comprising a head shroud attached to the head seal and configured to limit movement of air between a portion of the head of the user and the head seal and the environment, wherein the head shroud comprises at least one of a fabric, a foam, or a polymer sheet, and wherein the head seal is attached to the head shroud by a sewn thread seam, ultrasonic welding, or an adhesive. Wright teaches a face shield including a head shroud (disclosed as a hood which is considered equivalent to a head shroud) as in par.44.
For claim 14, the head shroud is disclosed as fabric and worn over the back portion of a user’s head to help support the face plate 710 and protect the upper and rear areas of the user’s head from the environment.
For claim 15, Wright doesn’t teach attaching the head seal to the head shroud by a sewn thread seam, ultrasonic welding, or adhesive. In the modification of Broersma’s head seal to provide a head shroud as taught by Wright, it is considered obvious to attach the head shroud to the head seal to prevent the shroud from being dislodged from the user’s head, particularly as Wright teaches the shroud supports the face plate 710, and attaching by adhesive would not compromise the structural integrity of the head seal as the adhesive would adhere a surface of the head shroud to a surface of the head seal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Broersma’s face shield to comprise a head shroud attached to the head seal and configured to limit movement of air between a portion of the head of the user and the head seal and the environment, wherein the head shroud comprises at least one of a fabric, a foam, or a polymer sheet, and wherein the head seal is attached to the head shroud by a sewn thread seam, ultrasonic welding, or an adhesive as Wright teaches the fabric head shroud is waterproof and breathable and helps support face plate 710 while also protecting the wearer’s head and attaching the shroud to the seal by adhesive would further the intended function of the head shroud to support the face plate while also preventing loss of the head shroud as the shroud will be retained to the head seal.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boersma ‘802 in view of Coombs et al. (U.S. 4,286,339). Boersma discloses the invention substantially as claimed but doesn’t teach a suspension system configured to support the face shield shell and the face shield lens on a head of a wearer of the face shield. Coombs teaches a suspension system configured to support a helmet shell 10 and lens 14, the suspension system including a foam liner 20 in the form of a ring, a cradle 30 of a plurality of straps 32,33 and the suspension system straps adjustable to fit a wearer’s head and functioning to attenuate and distribute an impact force. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Broersma to comprise a suspension system configured to support the face shield shell and lens on a head of the wearer of the face shield as taught by Coombs, as the suspension system is expected to attenuate and distribute an impact force received by the face shield shell and lens.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered. The double patenting rejection of claim 1 is modified as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to claim 1.
For the art-based rejections, Applicant’s remarks concerning Simpson and Cheng have been reviewed with regard to the amendments to claim 1 and these rejections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Primary Examiner Katherine Moran at (571) 272-4990 (phone). Please note that any internet communication directed to katherine.moran@uspto.gov requires prior submission of an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439). The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, and alternating Fridays.If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Khoa Huynh, may be reached at (571) 272-4888. The official and after final fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273-8300. General information regarding this application and
questions directed to matters of form and procedures may be directed to the PTO Contact
Center/Inventors Assistance Center at (800) 786-9199/571-272-1000. Information regarding the status
of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.
Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For questions on
access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
free).
/KATHERINE M MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732