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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2 and 11 withdrawn by Applicant from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/10/2025. Therefore, claims 1, 3-10, and 12-13 are presented for examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/4/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “31” has been used to designate both “brim portion” (paragraph 49, figure 2) and “biasing tab” (paragraph 53, figure 6).
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “44” (figure 5), “22C” (figures 10, 11, 12, 13).
The drawings are further objected to because the part labeled “26” on figure 5 does not appear to be the “accessory port”. It appears that it may be a typo and possibly should be “16” which is “male coupling port”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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: “second are” in line 8 should likely be “second area”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8, 13 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 8, the claim recites the limitation “the user” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as a user has not been previously introduced in the claim or claim 1, from which it depends.
Further regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the elongate portion of the brim is proximate the user’s back”. This limitation is unclear because it appears to require a person, and it is unclear when infringement would occur. If an assembly with identical structure to the claimed invention is not “proximate” to any user’s back (i.e., when it is on a shelf, in storage, not worn by a user, or worn by a user with the elongate brim portion in a position that is not considered to be “proximate the user’s back”), would that be infringing on the claimed invention? For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as an intended use of the invention (i.e., wherein the elongate portion of the brim is configured to be proximate the user’s back when worn).
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “wherein hardhat has a geometric shape”, which is missing an article. It is therefore unclear whether “hardhat” is referring back to the hardhat introduced in claim 1 or a new limitation. For the purposes of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as referring to the hardhat introduced in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the hardhat is reverse donned by the user”. This limitation is unclear because it appears to require a person, and it also appears to be describing a method of use when the claim invention is a product, so it is unclear when infringement would occur. If a hardhat with identical structure to the claimed invention is not worn by a user or is worn in manner that is not “reverse donned”, would that be infringing on the claimed invention? For the purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as an intended use of the invention (i.e., wherein the hardhat is configured to be reverse donned by the user).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 8, 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the elongate portion of the brim is proximate the user’s back”. This limitation requires a human because it defines a structural component of the invention (the elongate portion of the brim) with regards to human anatomy (proximate the user’s back).
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the hardhat is reverse donned by a user”. This limitation requires a human because it directly requires that a human interacts with the product. Examiner notes that the claims are to a product, not a method.
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, 4, 8, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perusse (US 2015/0296917), hereinafter “Perusse 2015”, in view of Zeilinger (US 2022/0047033).
Regarding claim 1, Perusse 2015 discloses: An assembly comprising: a hardhat (1300) comprising a hard shell (1310) and a brim portion circumscribing at least a portion of shell around the base of the hard shell and extending laterally away from the hard shell (see figures 13 and 14 showing there is a brim around the base of the hard shell); and, an air conduit (1320) removably coupled to the exterior of the hardhat (“the attachment can be more temporary, allowing the different walls 1332, 1334, 1342, 1344 to be detached from each other by the user for cleaning” paragraph 39), which defines an air channel and receives supplied, breathable air proximate a first area of the hardhat, and directs it to a second area proximate a second are of the hardhat (air is pulled from the rear of the hardhat and is directed to the front of the hardhat; see paragraph 38 describing the airflow; see also figures 13 and 14).
Perusse 2015 does not explicitly disclose: the brim portion comprising at least an elongate brim portion having a lateral dimension that exceeds the lateral dimension of any other brim portion and, wherein the first area of the hardhat is proximate the elongate brim portion.
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 hardhat of Perusse 2015 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 protection to a wearer’s face and/or neck from sun/UV rays and/or falling debris (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 in the rear of the helmet, then the first area of the hardhat (where the air is received) would be proximate the extended brim portion because the air is received from the rear of the helmet (see Perusse 2015, paragraph 38 and figures 13-14).
Regarding claim 4, Perusse 2015 as modified discloses: The assembly of claim 1, wherein the conduit comprises a thermoplastic material (Perusse 2015, “the air-flow chamber 1320 may be constructed out of the same rugged material as the main helmet body 1310” paragraph 38; “the helmet body 1310 is of the same construction as the helmet bodies 510, 110 described above” paragraph 37; “the body portion 110 may be made of a multitude of thermoplastic materials” paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 8, Perusse 2015 as modified discloses: The assembly of claim 1, wherein the user has a head having a front associated with the user's face, and a back opposite the front (a user has a head which has a front associated with the user’s face and a back opposite the front), and wherein the elongate portion of the brim is proximate the user's back (Perusse 2015, the hardhat can be worn with the elongate brim portion proximate the user’s back; 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 Perusse 2015 as modified has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written).
Regarding claim 12, Perusse 2015 as modified discloses: The assembly of claim 1, wherein hardhat has a geometric shape, and wherein the conduit follows the geometric shape of the hardhat (see figures 13 and 14 of Perusse 2015 which show that the conduit follows the geometric shape of the hardhat).
Regarding claim 13, Perusse 2015 as modified discloses: The assembly of claim 1, wherein the hardhat is reverse donned by a user (Perusse 2015, the hardhat can be worn in the reverse orientation; 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 Perusse 2015 as modified has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 2020/0329805) in view of Zeilinger.
Regarding claim 1, Wong discloses: An assembly comprising: a hardhat (12) comprising a hard shell (142) and a brim portion (14) circumscribing at least a portion of shell around the base of the hard shell and extending laterally away from the hard shell (see figure 1 showing the brim); and, an air conduit (60) removably coupled to the exterior of the hardhat (“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; see figure 3), which defines an air channel and receives supplied, breathable air proximate a first area of the hardhat, and directs it to a second area proximate a second are of the hardhat (air is pulled from a first, exterior area at the rear of the hardhat above the brim and is directed to a second, interior area of the hardhat below the brim; see paragraph 37 describing the airflow).
Wong does not explicitly disclose: the brim portion comprising at least an elongate brim portion having a lateral dimension that exceeds the lateral dimension of any other brim portion and, wherein the first area of the hardhat is proximate the elongate brim portion.
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 hardhat of Wong 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), and the conduits of Wong are specifically designed to be able to accommodate a variety of different brim configurations (see paragraph 38 of Wong) and Wong contemplates that its fan system “can be adapted for use with any type of brim configuration” (paragraph 45), therefore it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the brim in whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. 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 in the rear of the helmet, then the first area of the hardhat (where the air is received) would be proximate the extended brim portion because the air is received from the exterior area proximate the rear of the helmet.
Regarding claim 3, Wong as modified discloses: The 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 (Wong, “the safety helmets 11 and 12 are hard hats, and in a highly preferred embodiment, 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 45)
Regarding claim 9, Wong as modified discloses: The assembly of claim 1, wherein the hardhat further comprises at least one accessory port (100), and further comprising: at least one adapter (102) that removably couples the conduit to the hardhat, via the at least one accessory port (Wong, ”each of the shells 140 and 142 have a pair of the mount connectors 100 located on the front and back of the shell to form a quick release mount connection 22 with each of the connectors 102 on the components 16, 18, and 20 of the system 10” paragraph 46; in turn, the conduit 60 is removably connected to the air outlet of the fan housing 44 of the fan unit 18, as described in paragraph 37, therefore, the conduit 60 is removably coupled to the hardhat through the connection to the fan unit 18, which is connected via an adapter 102 to the accessory port 100 on the hard hat).
Regarding claim 10, Wong as modified discloses: The assembly of claim 9 and wherein the conduit is mechanically supported by the elongate portion (Wong, “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 elongate brim portion as modified).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perusse (US 2019/0289946), hereinafter “Perusse 2019”, in view of Perusse 2015 and Zeilinger.
Regarding claim 1, Perusse 2019 discloses: An assembly comprising: a hardhat (12) comprising a hard shell (24) and a brim portion (26) circumscribing at least a portion of shell around the base of the hard shell and extending laterally away from the hard shell (see paragraph 21 describing the brim); and, an air conduit (38) coupled to the exterior of the hardhat (“the external structure 38 […] lies upon the shell 24 of the hard hat” paragraph 47), which defines an air channel (34) and receives supplied, breathable air proximate a first area of the hardhat, and directs it to a second area proximate a second are of the hardhat (“pass the air 35b entering the pathway 34 at the engagement port 36 at the back 20 of the hard hat 12, up and over the head of the wearer through the pathway 34 and out the exit ports 37 positioned at the front 28 of the hard hat 12” paragraph 41; the first area of the hardhat is the rear, and the second area of the hardhat is the front).
Perusse 2019 teaches “the external structure 38 […] lies upon the shell 24 of the hard hat” (paragraph 47), however assuming arguendo that this is not an explicit teaching of the air conduit being specifically removably coupled to the hard hat, Perusse 2015 teaches an air conduit (1320) removably coupled to the exterior of the hardhat (“the attachment can be more temporary, allowing the different walls 1332, 1334, 1342, 1344 to be detached from each other by the user for cleaning” paragraph 39).
Perusse 2015 teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of hard hats with air conduit 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 attach the air conduit of Perusse 2019 to the hard hat of Perusse 2019 in a temporary (removable) fashion, as taught by Perusse 2015, in order to permit the user to detach the conduit for cleaning purposes (see paragraph 39 of Perusse 2014) or to replace the conduit if it becomes damaged.
Perusse 2019 does not explicitly disclose: the brim portion comprising at least an elongate brim portion having a lateral dimension that exceeds the lateral dimension of any other brim portion and, wherein the first area of the hardhat is proximate the elongate brim portion.
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 hardhat of Perusse 2019 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 protection to a wearer’s face and/or neck from sun/UV rays and/or falling debris (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 in the rear of the helmet, then the first area of the hardhat (where the air is received) would be proximate the extended brim portion because the air is received from the rear of the helmet (see Perusse 2019, paragraph 41).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perusse 2019/Perusse 2015/Zeilinger, and further in view of Walker (US 2010/0224194) and as evidenced by Summers (US 2688962).
Regarding claim 5, Perusse 2019 as modified does not explicitly disclose: The assembly of claim 1, further comprising: a hood, which covers the hardhat and conduit, and defines a breathable air zone for a user, and wherein the second area of the hardhat is closer to the breathable air zone than the first area of the hardhat.
However, Walker teaches a hood (12) which covers an air delivery conduit (see figures 1 and 22) and defines a breathable air zone for a user (“Air flows out of each conduit 28 from its air outlet 32 and into a breathable air zone 44 defined by the hood 12 about the head 16 of the user 18. Breathable air is thus delivered by the manifold 20 to the user's facial area 34 for inhalation purposes which, in some embodiments, includes not only the space around the user's nose and mouth where air may be inhaled, but also other areas about the user's face such as around the user's eyes and forehead.” paragraph 55).
Walker teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of respirators that are worn on a user’s head. 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 hood over the conduit assembly of Perusse 2019, as taught by Walker and as evidenced by Summers, in order to create a breathable air zone (see paragraph 55 of Walker) and to provide “additional protection against the incidence of chaff and dust” (Summers, column 4, lines 39-40) and prevent dust/paint particles from settling on the user’s head/hair that might otherwise be exposed outside the helmet as well as their neck and shoulders. Further, enclosing the user’s head within a hood to create a breathable air zone would provide additional protection from fumes (see paragraph 31 of Perusse 2019 which states that the filter can be used to filter out gasses/fumes that may be present when painting or doing construction work).
Regarding claim 6, Perusse 2019 as modified discloses: The assembly of claim 5, wherein the respiratory assembly further comprises a coupling port (Perusse 2019, 36) fluidically coupled to the conduit and located proximate the first area of the hardhat (see figure 3 and figure 10 of Perusse 2019 showing the port 36 being located proximate the first area (rear) of the hardhat; see paragraph 41 of Perusse 2019 describing the fluid connection and airflow), and wherein the hood comprises an aperture, through which the coupling port extends (as modified by Walker, opening 38; “On its back side, the hood 12 includes an air inlet opening 38 (FIG. 1). The air inlet conduit 26 of the manifold 20 extends through the air inlet opening 38 and is in fluid communication with a supply of breathable air via an air hose 40 attached to the air inlet conduit 26 (that attachment being, as shown in the embodiment of FIG. 1, outside of the hood 12). ” Walker, paragraph 55).
Regarding claim 7, Perusse 2019 as modified discloses: The assembly of claim 6, further comprising: a fan assembly (Perusse 2019, 42) fluidically coupled to the coupling port via a hose (Perusse 2019, 22; “the blower 42, then pushes the air 35b upward through the tubing 22 toward the hard hat 12. Air passes into the air flow pathway 34 of the hard hat 12 starting at the engagement port 36 as is illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3” paragraph 40).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Braun (US 4462399), Rosendahl (US 3881478), and English (US 2006/0053528) teach ventilated hard hats. Asnis (US 2022/0087356) and Manzella, Jr. (US 2007/0089221) teach air delivery systems with hoods/protective suits. Duncan (2009/0144884) teaches a protective hood with an aperture at the rear for an air delivery system. Ichigaya (US 2017/0231293) teaches air conditioned clothing which can be attached to a helmet.
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
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732