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 .
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(s) 1-6, 10, 12-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by US 3881478 (Rosendahl et al.).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, ‘478 discloses: device (fig. 1) comprising: a hardhat having an outer major surface (shown clearly in fig. 1); and an air conduit (40, fig. 1 and 4) coupled to the hardhat (shown clearly in fig. 1), the air conduit comprising a conduit wall that defines an air channel in conjunction with a portion of the outer major surface of the hardhat (shown clearly in fig. 1 and 4).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, ‘478 discloses: the air conduit further comprises an air inlet (channel/inlet formed by element 40 in fig. 1 and 4) and an air outlet (shown clearly in fig. 1 and 4).
Claim 18 includes the same scope of claims 1 and 2 combined.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, ‘478 discloses: the air inlet comprises an attachment mechanism (43, fig. 1, 4; par. 5), for attachment to a source of supplied air (par. 5 “for receiving a hose 44 from a source of clean air of any suitable type”).
Regarding claim 4, ‘478 discloses: the hardhat has a front, corresponding to the portion of the hardhat proximate a user's forehead when the hardhat is donned by the user, and a back, corresponding to the portion of the hardhat proximate user's back of head when donned by the user (inherent to device shown in fig. 1 and 4), and wherein the attachment mechanism is proximate the back of the hardhat (43, fig. 1, 4; par. 5).
Regarding claim 5, ‘478 discloses: the air outlet is positioned closer to the front area than the back area (shown clearly in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, ‘478 discloses: the air conduit comprises a plurality of air sub- conduits (47 is disclosed with multiple tubular passages; elements 61 and 62 are ‘air sub conduits’).
Regarding claim 10, ‘478 discloses: the air conduit (40, fig. 1 and 4) has a geometric shape that is contoured to substantially follow the shape of the outer major surface of the hardhat (inherent to the structure shown in fig. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 12, ‘478 discloses: the hardhat has a crown portion (inherent to the structure shown in fig. 1 and 4), and the air conduit (40) is positioned proximate the crown portion (inherent to the structure shown in fig. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 13, ‘478 discloses: the air conduit (40) provides an air channel from an area proximate the back of the hardhat toward the front of the hardhat (shown clearly in fig. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 14, ‘478 discloses: the air conduit (40) includes internal rib structures that define, at least partially, a plurality of air channels (par 8, states: “A pair of partitions 61 and 62 of honeycomb material are advantageously inserted in the sides of manifold 40 for the purpose of improving the air flow therein. The parallel passages in these partitions extend in a slightly downward direction as suggested by the angle .beta. in FIG. 1, which may for example be 9.degree.” and element 47 is disclosed as plural tubular passages/ribs/channels shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, ‘478 discloses: the air conduit provides fluid communication between the air inlet and the air outlet (inherent to structures and air flow shown in fig. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 16, ‘478 discloses: the air conduit is injection molded (this recitation is a product by process limitation; ‘478 does disclose, “light, rigid material”; the MPEP is clear with regards to product by process limitations:
“the lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different that a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531,535,173 USPQ 685,688 (CCPA 1972). Therefore the burden is shifted to applicant to bring forth evidence that the claimed processing steps would have a material different result than the prior art’s disclosed structure.).
Regarding claim 20, ‘478 discloses: coupled to a source supplying air, air moves into the inlet and toward the outlet (inherent to structure and air flow shown in figs. 1 and 4).
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) 7-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3881478 (Rosendahl et al.) in view of US 2011/0240026 (Ausen).
Regarding claim 7, ‘478 discloses: a hardhat per claim 7 and all limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
‘478 does not explicitly disclose the hardhat meeting regulatory standards: EN 397:2012+A1, ANSI/ISEAZ89.1-2014, Z94.1-15, or UNE-EN 12941.
However, it is noted that the mere existence of a known regulatory standard provides a clear case of prima facie obviousness, in that, it would have been ‘obvious to try’ to meet any of the known regulatory standards to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to meet the known regulatory standards for better health and safety of the user.
For further evidence of prima facie obviousness, ‘026 is referenced as it teaches explicitly, “In contrast, the shaped profile of the scroll according to the present disclosure can allow the blower 20 to better conform to the shape of the helmet 50 or to any other unusual shape constraints created by the particular application. In addition to allowing for a more compact construction of PAPR components, this configuration can increase clearance distance between the top of a wearer's head and the blower 20 in a helmet-mounted PAPR such as shown in FIG. 1. Such a distance can be important for meeting ANSI Z89.1, EN 397, AS-NZ 1801 Helmet Standards and other health and safety standards for hard hats [par. 24].”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of headworn air-blowing devices prior to filing the invention to provide/modify the device disclosed by ‘478 to be capable of meeting known regulatory standards to enhance the health and safety of the user of the device.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach claim 7 as above. Further, ‘478 fully discloses: further comprising an adaptor that mechanically couples the air conduit to the hardhat ((43, fig. 1, 4; par. 5 “for receiving a hose 44 from a source of clean air of any suitable type”).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach claim 7 as above. Further, ‘478 fully discloses: the hardhat further comprises a plurality of accessory ports (light mounting clip 13 and section that holds element 43 in figs. 1 and 4; are a ‘plurality of accessory ports’), and wherein the adaptor couples to the hardhat via at least one of the plurality of accessory ports (element 43 does ‘couple to the hardhat via the section that holds element 43; fig. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach claim 7 as above. Further, ‘478 fully discloses: a powered air supply coupled to the air inlet , wherein the powered air supply provides the source of supplied air to the inlet of the air conduit, and a substantial portion of the supplied air flows out of the outlet of the air conduit (‘high velocity flow’ in par. 10 inherently requires a powered air supply; air inlet, air conduit and direction of air flow are already addressed above and shown clearly in figs. 1 and 4).
Claim(s) 17, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3881478 (Rosendahl et al.) in view of US 9510632 (Perusse et al.).
Regarding claims 17 and 21, ‘478 discloses claim 4 and claim 18, as above. ‘478 does not disclose the air conduit comprises a thermoplastic material.
‘478 does disclose the air conduit is made from ‘light, rigid’ material.
Thermoplastic material must certainly be conceded as one of the most commonly known and used light, rigid materials known for at least the last 100 years or more.
Further, ‘632 is referenced as it teaches, “The hard hat 100 includes a main body portion 110. The main body portion 110 serves the purpose of protecting the user's head as well as a mounting body for a plurality of electrical and air flow components. This body portion 110 may be made of a multitude of thermoplastic materials such as ABS, Polycarbonate, or other blends [par. 20].”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of hard hat materials prior to filing the invention to modify the light rigid material used in ‘478 to a thermoplastic material, since thermoplastic materials are clearly taught as commonplace materials known to be used in the production of hardhats that provide protection to a user’s head and a mounting body for a plurality of electrical and airflow components.
Regarding claim 22, the combined teachings address claim 21 as above. Further, ‘478 does fully disclose: the air conduit comprises rib structures or pegs extending into the air channel (par 8, states: “A pair of partitions 61 and 62 of honeycomb material are advantageously inserted in the sides of manifold 40 for the purpose of improving the air flow therein. The parallel passages in these partitions extend in a slightly downward direction as suggested by the angle .beta. in FIG. 1, which may for example be 9.degree.” and element 47 is disclosed as plural tubular passages/ribs/channels shown in fig. 1).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3881478 (Rosendahl et al.) in view of US 9510632 (Perusse et al.) and further in view of US 2011/0240026 (Ausen).
‘478 in view of ‘632 teach claim 22 as above, they do not teach the hardhat meets at least one of the following regulatory standards: EN 397:2012+A1, ANSI/ISEA Z89.1-2014, Z94.1-15, or UNE- EN 12941.
However, it is noted that the mere existence of a known regulatory standard provides a clear case of prima facie obviousness, in that, it would have been ‘obvious to try’ to meet any of the known regulatory standards to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to meet the known regulatory standards for better health and safety of the user.
For further evidence of prima facie obviousness, ‘026 is referenced as it teaches explicitly, “In contrast, the shaped profile of the scroll according to the present disclosure can allow the blower 20 to better conform to the shape of the helmet 50 or to any other unusual shape constraints created by the particular application. In addition to allowing for a more compact construction of PAPR components, this configuration can increase clearance distance between the top of a wearer's head and the blower 20 in a helmet-mounted PAPR such as shown in FIG. 1. Such a distance can be important for meeting ANSI Z89.1, EN 397, AS-NZ 1801 Helmet Standards and other health and safety standards for hard hats [par. 24].”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of headworn air-blowing devices prior to filing the invention to provide/modify the device taught by ‘478 in view of ‘632 to be capable of meeting known regulatory standards to enhance the health and safety of the user of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Various helmets and air circulation devices are attached to establish the general state of the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR whose telephone number is (571)272-4991. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 730-1730.
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.
/ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732