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
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 5/4/2026, claims 1-7, 9-11 are amended. Claims 8 and 12-13 are canceled. Claims 2 and 11 remain withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10 are presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and it has introduced new ones.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 101.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented drawing objections and it has introduced new ones.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/4/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In light of Applicant’s amendment, which has introduced new limitations that have changed the scope of the claims, new prior art has been identified and applied, as described in the rejections below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a face piece that covers at least a face region and a head region but does not provide impact protection” (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Examiner notes that the hood (30) and a viewing window (19) are shown in the figures; however, it is not clear from the drawings what part of the hood is supposed to be the “face piece” when the viewing window appears to be over the face region of the user, but the viewing window is defined separately from the “face piece” in the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “configure” in line 16 should likely be “configured”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1, 6 (and claims 3-5, 7, 9-10 at least for depending from a rejected base claim) is 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “a hood enveloping the respirator assembly”. This imitation is unclear because the claim as a whole is drawn to “a respirator assembly”. It is therefore unclear whether the hood is supposed to be a constituent part of the respirator assembly and, if so, what it means for the hood to “envelop” itself.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “a face piece that covers at least a face region and a head region but does not provide impact protection”. Firstly, as described in the drawing objections above, it is unclear what part of the hood is supposed to be the claimed “face piece”, as opposed to the “viewing window”, as the viewing window appears to be the part of the hood that covers the face region, but it is claimed separately from the “face piece”. Moreover, it is unclear what it means for the face piece to “not provide impact protection”. It is understood that the presence of even fabric can provide some protection from light impacts, such as from a thrown paper ball or other small, light objects. Additionally, fabric such as clothing is understood to provide some degree of protection in case of a fall or collision (i.e., impact) as it can reduce the likelihood of the skin breaking (i.e., cuts/scrapes) when a person comes into contact with the ground or other objects compared to when the skin is uncovered by any fabric. Thus it is unclear what material or structure would be considered to meet the limitation that it “does not provide impact protection”.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “wherein the hood comprises an aperture, through which the coupling port extends”. However, an aperture was already introduced in amended claim 1. It is therefore unclear whether this aperture is the same aperture as defined in claim 1, or a different, additional aperture. For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as the same aperture defined in claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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(s) 1, 5-6, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann (DE 102015108562 A1, a machine translation of which is provided with this Office action) in view of Zeilinger (US 2022/0047033) and Brace (US 8534279).
Regarding claim 1 as best understood by Examiner, Lindemann discloses: A respirator assembly comprising: a hardhat (2) designed to provide head impact protection (“the protective helmet may be a conventional standardized industrial protective helmet, e.g., according to the European standard for working protective helmets DIN EN 397” paragraph 12), the hardhat having an outer major surface having a geometric shape and comprising a hard shell (“the helmet shell 2 consists of a standard plastic material which has the required resistance” paragraph 31) and a brim portion circumscribing at least a portion of hard shell around the base of the hard shell and extending laterally away from the hard shell (see figures 1 and 3 showing the geometric shape of the hardhat and the brim), the brim portion comprising at least an elongate brim portion having a lateral dimension that exceeds the lateral dimension of any other brim portion (see figures 1 and 3); and, a hood (1) enveloping the respirator assembly to define a breathable air zone (see figures 1 and 3; “breathing air emerging from the mouth of the feed line 7 flows into the front region of the head hood 3, in which the viewing window 5 is arranged and in which the face of the wearer of the head hood 3 is located” paragraph 38, this front region can be considered the breathable air zone), the hood comprising: a face piece (3) that covers at least a face region and a head region but does not provide impact protection (“the protective hood 1 consists of a flexible and chemical-resistant material, in particular of a synthetic coated fabric” paragraph 30; since the hood is made of fabric, it is understood to provide “no impact protection” insofar as claimed or described); a viewing window (5); and an aperture (20) which allows an air inlet to extend outside of the hood and couple to an air supply line (“in the back region of the skirt 4 of the protective hood 1, a passage opening 20 is arranged near the lower edge, which is traversed by the lower end of the compressed air hose 7 […] the hose coupling 19 can be connected […] to a compressed air hose which leads to a stationary compressed air source” paragraph 40; see figure 1); an air conduit (7) removably coupled to the exterior of the hardhat, the air conduit having a shape that follows the geometric shape of at least part of the outer major surface of the hardhat (see figures 1 and 3), which defines the air conduit defining an air channel and being configure to receive supplied, breathable air through the air inlet proximate a first area of the hardhat (“in the back region of the skirt 4 of the protective hood 1, a passage opening 20 is arranged near the lower edge, which is traversed by the lower end of the compressed air hose 7 […] the hose coupling 19 can be connected to a compressed air cylinder supported in front of the support of the protective hood 1 or to a compressed air hose which leads to a stationary compressed air source” paragraph 40; see figure 1; Examiner notes that the air inlet is considered proximate a first area of the hard hat because the first area of the hard hat can be defined as an area at the rear of the hard hat and the air inlet is proximate (close) to the back of the hard hat insofar as defined by the claim; Examiner notes that the term "proximate" is very broad and merely means "close; very near". (Defn. No. 2 of "Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), and directs it to an air outlet (17) at a second area of the hardhat proximate the breathable air zone (“a porous air outlet body 17 is arranged at the end of the feed line 7, from which porous air outlet body the pressurized breathing air flows uniformly and with little noise generation into the region in front of the adapter part” paragraph 40; the area in front of the adapter part is considered a second area, and this second area of the hardhat is proximate the breathable air zone insofar as defined by the claim because it is close to the breathable air zone at the front region of the hood); wherein the first area of the hardhat is proximate the elongate brim portion (the first area was defined as an area at the rear of the hardhat, which is proximate (close to) the brim portion insofar as defined by the claim, as shown in figure 1).
Lindemann also teaches the hardhat is configured for reverse donning such that, in a reverse-donned orientation, the first area of the hardhat is at a rear of the hardhat (the first area was defined as an area at the rear of the hardhat) and the second area is at a front of the hardhat proximate the breathable air zone (the area in front of the adapter part is considered a second area, and this second area of the hardhat is proximate the breathable air zone insofar as defined by the claim because it is close to the breathable air zone at the front region of the hood/hardhat). Examiner notes that the italicized limitations are being interpreted as intended use limitations, and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114(II). As Lindemann has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claimed limitations as written.
Lindemann does not explicitly teach: the elongate brim portion is at a rear of the hardhat.
However, Zeilinger teaches a hardhat with a variety of brim configurations. Specifically, Zeilinger teaches “the white bill 42 (e.g., of a bill styled climbing helmet) extends further in the front 14. The extended brim 12 style (e.g., traditional style) extends further on the sides and rear 15 of hard hat 10” (paragraph 68). See figure 4. Further, Zeilinger states, “Applicant has found that users have preferences for different styles of hard hats 10” (paragraph 67).
Zeilinger teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of hardhats. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the hard hat of Lindemann in the “traditional style” with a brim that extends further in the sides and rear of the hard hat, as taught by Zeilinger, because the style of brim can be changed and chosen based on user preference (see Zeilinger, paragraph 67), therefore it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the brim in whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. Furthermore, including a brim would provide increased protection to a user’s neck from sun/UV rays and/or falling debris (Zeilinger, paragraph 7). A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. See MPEP 2144.04. Examiner notes that, as modified, since the brim is extended at the rear of the helmet, then the first area of the hardhat would also be proximate (close) the extended brim portion because air is received from the back/behind the user (see figure 1 of Lindemann).
Lindemann teaches that the viewing window is located in front of the user’s face when worn (see paragraph 30, 38, figures 1-3) and describes it as a “viewing window” (which implies that a user can see or view through it), but ultimately is silent as to the material of the viewing window and therefore does not explicitly disclose: the viewing window made of a light transmissive material.
However, Brace teaches a respirator system with a viewing window made of a light transmissive material (“the visor 122 includes a transparent member, which may be made of any suitable transparent material, such as a plastic material” column 3, lines 42-44).
Brace teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of respirator systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the viewing window of Lindemann specifically out of a transparent (light transmissive) material to ensure that the user has a clear view and can see well through the viewing window while using the respirator, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 5, Lindemann as modified discloses: The respirator assembly of claim 1, wherein the second area of the hardhat is closer to the breathable air zone than the first area of the hardhat (the second area of the hardhat was defined as the area near the air outlet 17, and that area is closer to the breathable air zone (the front region of the hood) than the first area of the hardhat, which is at the rear of the hardhat).
Regarding claim 6, Lindemann as modified discloses: The respirator assembly of claim 5, wherein the respiratory assembly further comprises a coupling port (19) fluidically coupled to the conduit and located proximate the first area of the hardhat (the coupling port 19 is considered to be proximate the first area of the hard hat insofar as defined by the claim, as a degree for how proximate (close) to the first area of the hardhat has not been defined by the claim or specification, and the coupling port 19 is located at the back of the hood as shown in figures 1 and 2 so it is proximate (close) to the first area (rear) of the hardhat), and wherein the hood comprises an aperture (20), through which the coupling port extends (“a hose coupling 19 at the lower end of the supply line 7 […] a passage opening 20 is arranged near the lower edge, which is traversed by the lower end of the compressed air hose 7” paragraph 40; see figure 1; Examiner further notes that since the hose coupling is at the lower end of the hose 7, and that is the part of the hose that traverse the passage opening, it is understood that the hose coupling traverses the opening).
Regarding claim 9, Lindemann as modified discloses: The respirator assembly of claim 1, wherein the hardhat further comprises at least one accessory port (11), and further comprising: at least one adapter (6) that removably couples the conduit to the hardhat, via the at least one accessory port (“the coupling element 10 has a latching element, namely a downwardly projecting latching tongue 13, which projects into the slot 11 of the protective helmet 2 and latches there” paragraph 35, see all of paragraph 35 describing the attachment of the adapter to the helmet, and see also figure 6).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann/Zeilinger/Brace as applied to claim 1 above, and as further evidenced by Wong (US 2020/0329805).
Regarding claim 3, Lindemann as modified discloses: The respirator assembly of claim 1, wherein the hardhat meets at least one of the following standards: EN 397:2012+A1, ANSI/ISEA Z89.1-2014, Z94.1- 15, or UNE-EN 12941 (“protective helmet 2, which is for example a standardized working protective helmet according to DIN EN 397” paragraph 31; Examiner notes that the standard DIN EN 397 is known to correspond with the EN 397 standard, as DIN indicates it is the German version of the European standard (see Seather Technology article “Understanding DIN and EN Standards and their Equivalents to ASTM” cited herewith which describes how DIN EN refers to the German version of a European (EN) standard).
However, assuming arguendo that this is not an explicit teaching of the hardhat meeting at least one of the claimed standards, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the protective hardhat of Lindemann specifically such that it is compliant with known industry standards like ANSI/ISEA Z89.1-2014 or CSA Z94.1-15, as evidenced by Wong (specifically, Wong teaches “the helmets are configured to satisfy the requirements set forth in ANSI/ISEA Z89.1-2014 and/or CSA Z94.1-15, either TYPE I or II, and any or all of Classes C, E, & G” (paragraph 60), which is evidence that these industry standards were known before the effective filing date of the instant application), in order to ensure that the helmet can be used in industry because it satisfies all industrial requirements. Further, making the helmet such that it complies with known industry standards will improve the safety and overall reliability of the product.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann/Zeilinger/Brace as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Becker (US 2009/0055987).
Regarding claim 4, Lindemann as modified is silent as to the specific material of the air hose and therefore does not explicitly disclose: The respirator assembly of claim 1, wherein the conduit comprises a thermoplastic material.
However, Becker teaches an air conduit for a respirator system, wherein the conduit comprises a thermoplastic material (“the flexible conduit may be constructed of linear polyethylene combined with a copolymer” paragraph 41; polyethylene is a thermoplastic material).
Becker teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of respirator systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the conduit out of a thermoplastic material, as taught by Becker, in order to allow the conduit to flex and move as needed while maintaining airflow (see paragraph 41 of Becker), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann/Zeilinger/Brace as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Asnis (US 2022/0087356)
Regarding claim 7, Lindemann discloses a compressed air cylinder or air compressor but does not explicitly teach: The respirator assembly of claim 6, further comprising: a fan assembly fluidically coupled to the coupling port via a hose.
However, Asnis teaches an air filtering system for use with a helmet (10) and hood (100) comprising a fan assembly (20) with filters (29a, 29b, 29c).
Asnis teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of respirator systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to replace the generic air compressor of Lindemann with the filtered blower 20 of Asnis in order to “remove contaminants, including bacteria, viruses, vapors, and gasses from ambient air drawn into the filter unit to generate filtered air that is delivered to the practitioner” (Asnis, abstract). This will increase safety for the user as contaminants will be removed from the air that is supplied to the user.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann/Zeilinger/Brace as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wong (US 2020/0329805).
Regarding claim 10, Lindemann does not explicitly disclose: The respirator assembly of claim 9 and wherein the conduit is mechanically supported by the elongate portion.
However, Wong teaches an air conduit that is mechanically supported by the brim of a hard hat (“each duct 60 can be provided with a releasable connector 70 that is configured to provide a releasable connection with the brims 13 and 14 of the helmets 11 and 12” paragraph 38; the releasable connector 70 directly attaches the conduit to the brim, therefore the conduit is mechanically supported by the brim).
Wong teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of personal protection devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to add a releasable connector to attach the air hose of Lindemann to the brim of the hardhat of Lindemann, as taught by Wong, in order to ensure that the hose is more secured and remains in place behind the user and does not shift around to the side or front even as the user moves.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRIANNA T DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, 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.
/BRIANNA T. DUCKWORTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/JAMESON D COLLIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights