DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
2. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim 9 on lines 2-4 states “…one or more
portions of the face liner being fixed to the headgear frame and one or more other portions of the
face liner not being attached to the headgear frame” is indefinite since it is unclear what “other
portions” of the face liner is not attached to the headgear frame? Is the face liner made with end
portions that are space apart, etc.? Furthermore, in claim 10, on line 2-4, states “…one or more
portions of the face liner being fixed to the headgear frame and one or more other portions of the
face liner being removably attached to the headgear frame” is indefinite since it is unclear
what “other portions” of the face liner is removably attached to the headgear frame? Is the face
liner made with multiple segment portions that are removably attached to the headgear frame,
etc.? Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trutna et al.
(2016/0216760). Trutna et al. (hereinafter Trutna) discloses a multi-layer headgear
system secured by a headband (210) worn on the head including a headgear frame/ rigid
body (205) with a single piece face liner (225) made of foam/flexible material,
subparagraph 33 attached thereto as shown in figure 2. Further, sensors (165) are
positioned on the liner (225) as shown in figure 3. However, Trutna does not show the
face liner shape or contour position of the sensors with respect to the face when the
headgear frame is worn.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the headgear of Trutna having the sensors on the face liner made of foam are substantially shaped or contoured to position the sensors with respect to conform to shape of the face when the headgear frame is secured and worn about the head by the headband to optimize performance or as required for application thereof.
With regard to claims 3 and 4 and 13-14, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the face liner made of foam of Trutna is substantially configured to be flexed onto the face when mechanical pressure is applied by the headband when device is worn on the head or depending on end use thereof.
In addition, with regard to claims 5 and 15, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the face liner made of foam having the sensors of Trutna can include but not limited to a substrate with additional foam pads, etc. so that that the device is comfortable and offers a better fit when worn on the head.
With regard to claims 7 and 17, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the face liner of Trutna can be made but not limited to multi-piece face left and right liner sides. etc. so that worn or damaged left and/or right liner sides can be replaced in a cost effective manner or as required for an end use thereof.
Furthermore, with regard to claims 9 and 19, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the face liner attached to the headgear of Trutna substantially defines a portion of the face liner being fixed to the headgear frame with upper and side portions/walls of the face liner not attached directly to the headgear frame worn on the head as shown in figure 2.
Also, with regard to claims 10 and 20, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention that the face liner attached to the headgear of Trutna substantially defines a portion of the face liner being fixed to the headgear in a removably manner by hook and loop material. etc. so that worn or damaged face liner can easily be replaced as needed when the device is worn on the head or as required for a particular application thereof.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure. Each of the prior art references cited on PTO-892 discloses a headgear system
having sensors mounted about the face.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEJASH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-4993. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am -5pm.
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, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
December 18, 2025 /TAJASH D PATEL/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3732