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 6/25/2026, claims 10, 12-13 are amended. Claims 10, 12-19 are currently pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 101 and 112(b).
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented claim and drawing objections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant argues that Lindemann does not disclose “a coupling port… located proximate the back of the user’s head when the hardhat is donned”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are based on the term “proximate”, and Applicant appears to desire a narrow/specific definition of “proximate”; however, Examiner notes that Applicant has not provided such a definition for the term, nor has the specification provided a definition to define the metes and bounds of “proximate”, which is a broad and relative term. The term has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation, its dictionary definition, which is "close; very near". (Defn. No. 2 of "Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com). Applicant's arguments further fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references, as Applicant has further not provided an explanation of why the location described in Lindemann does not meet the limitation beyond the conclusory statement “a coupling positioned near the lower edge of the skirt is not located proximate the back of the user’s head” (Remarks, page 10). Examiner therefore maintains that the location of the coupling port described in Lindemann is “proximate the back of the user’s head” insofar as currently defined by the claim.
Further regarding claim 10, Applicant argues that Lindemann does not disclose that the coupling port extends through the aperture. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lindemann teaches “a hose coupling 19 at the lower end of the supply line 7” and later describes “a passage opening 20 is arranged near the lower edge, which is traversed by the lower end of the compressed air hose 7” (Lindemann, paragraph 40). Since the hose coupling is at the lower end of the compressed air hose, and that is also the part of the hose that traverses the passage opening, it is readily understood that the hose coupling traverses the opening.
Further regarding claim 10, Applicant argues that the obviousness rejection “does not explain adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have relocated that coupling to a position proximate the back of the user’s head” (Remarks, page 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in the rejection, the rearrangement of parts of an invention (such as moving the location of the coupling port, which would not have changed the operation of the device) involves only routine skill in the art, and legal precedent can be relied upon as source of supporting rationale, especially when the Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of the specific limitation and the change in location does not change the operation of the device (See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C), “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).”).
Regarding claim 19, Applicant argues that the standard referenced in Lindemann is not one of the standards recited in the claim and Lindemann does not anticipate the claim for that reason. Examiner respectfully disagrees. DIN EN 397 and EN 397:2012+A1 are equivalent international standards. The DIN EN code refers to the German language version of a European (EN) standard (as evidenced by Seather Technology article “Understanding DIN and EN Standards and their Equivalents to ASTM” cited herewith which states, “sometimes, you see DIN and EN standards together as DIN EN. This means the German version of a European standard” (page 2) and “when you see DIN EN, you know it is a German version of a European rule” (page 4)). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a helmet that meets the DIN EN 397 standard anticipates a claim to the equivalent EN 397:2012+A1 standard.
Further regarding claim 19, Applicant argues that “the rejection does not identify any teaching or reason to select the particular claimed standards […] nor does it explain what modification to Lindemann would have been made to achieve compliance with any such standard” (Remarks, page 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that both the modification and the reasoning for doing so were explicitly described in the rejection. Specific rationale for making the modification was provided in the rejection (“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” Non-final rejection, page 10). Regarding “what modification” would be made, the rejection explains that it would be obvious to modify the helmet of Lindemann to comply with the requirements of widely known industry standards, as evidenced by Wong.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant argues that “Stetson discloses an elastic closure associated with a sleeve surrounding a tube, not specifically claimed biased aperture of the hood itself” (Remarks, page 12). In response, Examiner firstly notes that the “sleeve” Applicant is referring to is described explicitly in Stetson as an integral part of the hood, therefore Stetson discloses an elastic aperture (an opening through which the hose passes through) on a hood (“the opening through which the tube extends may be provided by a sleeve 13 sewed on or integral with the body of the hood, which sleeve is adapted to be closed around the exterior of the tube by a drawstring 14 or elastic material, e.g., a rubber band” (Stetson, column 3, lines 32-37). Applicant has not provided any further explanation as to why this does not constitute a biased aperture by the use of an elastic material as claimed or how the claim language distinguishes the claimed invention from the prior art. Applicant further argues that “The Office Action does not identify any teaching in Lindemann or Stetson suggesting that Lindemann’s opening should be reconfigured into the particular biased-aperture arrangement recited in claim 12 beyond general hindsight reasoning that a seal would be beneficial” (Remarks, page 12). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the rejection as previously presented provides a clear motivation (“further improve the protection of the user against chemicals in the environment by reducing the possibility that chemicals will enter the hood in the space between the aperture and air hose” Non-final rejection, page 12). It is not necessary that the motivation is found explicitly in either the Lindemann or Stetson references, as described in MPEP 2141.03, "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.”. In this case, Lindemann describes the importance of maintaining a safe supply of breathing air and chemical protection in paragraph 42, and based on the teachings found in Stetson, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having elastic around the aperture to close the opening around the air hose can aid in that goal, as described in the rejection.
Regarding claims 14-18, Applicant argues that Asnis does not remedy the deficiencies regarding claim 10 from which claim 14 depends, and the dependent claims should be allowed based on their dependency from claim 10. In response, Examiner notes that Asnis was not relied upon to teach the limitations of claim 10, as those limitations were already taught by Lindemann as described in the rejections below and arguments above. Applicant has not presented any specific arguments regarding the combination or modification of Lindemann by Asnis to meet the limitations of claims 14-18, therefore the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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) 10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lindemann (DE102015108562A1), a machine translation of which is provided with this Office action.
Regarding claim 10, Lindemann discloses: A respirator assembly comprising: a hardhat (2) designed to provide impact protection for a user's head (“protective helmet 2, which is for example a standardized working protective helmet according to DIN EN 397” paragraph 31), the hardhat having an outer major surface (the helmet 2 necessarily has an outer surface), a brim (see figures 1 and 3 showing the helmet has a brim), one or more hardhat accessory ports (11), and an adaptor (6) that is removably coupled to the hardhat through the one or more hardhat accessory ports (“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. By pulling out the locking tongue 13, the coupling element 10 can be separated from the helmet shell 2. The adapter part 6 is configured symmetrically, so that on the left-hand side of the protective helmet 2 in FIG. 4 a corresponding coupling element 9 is provided, which has a latching tongue, which latches into an insertion opening of the protective helmet 2”pargraph 35; see also figure 6); an air conduit defining an air channel (7) and having at least one air outlet (17), the air conduit adapted to removably couple to the outer major surface of the hardhat via the adapter (“an adapter part 6 is fastened to the protective helmet 2, which carries the end region of the supply line 7 for the breathing air” paragraph 33); a coupling port (19) in fluidic communication with the air conduit and further defining the air channel, the coupling port being located proximate the back of the user's head when the hardhat is donned (the coupling port 19 is considered to be proximate the back of the user’s head insofar as defined by the claim, as a degree for how proximate (close) to the back of the user’s head the coupling port has to be has not been defined by the claim or specification, and the coupling port 19 is located in the back of the hood, as shown in figures 1 and 2, so it is at least closer to the back of the user’s head than it is to the front of the user’s head); and, first and second hood coupling assemblies (24, 25) detachably coupled to the hardhat via the adapter (“The edges of the viewing window can be connected to the edges 22, 23 of the retaining web 8 via the push button parts 24, 25, so that the viewing window 5 of the head hood 3 is securely fixed in front of the eyes of the wearer of the protective helmet 2” paragraph 41), wherein the first and second hood coupling assemblies are positioned so that they extend below the brim of the hardhat and sit proximate temple regions of the user's head when the hardhat is worn (“the retaining web 8 of the adapter element 6 is extended beyond its fastening elements, namely the coupling elements 9, 10 and the fastening pin 14, so that the two lateral edges 22 and 23 of the retaining web 8 run substantially vertically in the region of the edges of the viewing window 5” paragraph 41; see figure 4 showing the coupling assemblies extending below the brim and sitting proximate temple regions of the user’s head) and a hood (1) comprising a flexible material (“the protective hood 1 consists of a flexible and chemical-resistant material” paragraph 30) and a transparent viewing window (5), the hood adapted to cover the hardhat and the conduit and drape over the user's shoulders when the hood is worn by the user (see figure 1 showing the hood 1 covering the hardhat 2 and the conduit 7; it would drape over the user’s shoulders when worn), wherein the hood includes an aperture (20) for the coupling port to couple to an air supply line (“the hose coupling 19 can be connected to […] a compressed air hose which leads to a stationary compressed air source (compressed air cylinders or compressor)” paragraph 40), wherein the coupling port extends through the aperture (“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 and 2), and wherein the hood couples to the hardhat via the first and second hood coupling assemblies (“The edges of the viewing window can be connected to the edges 22, 23 of the retaining web 8 via the push button parts 24, 25, so that the viewing window 5 of the head hood 3 is securely fixed in front of the eyes of the wearer of the protective helmet 2” paragraph 41).
Alternatively, should Applicant disagree with Examiner’s interpretation of the phrase “the coupling port being located proximate the back of the user's head when the hardhat is donned”, it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make the coupling port of Lindemann located proximate the back of the user’s head when the hardhat is donned, since Applicant has provided no evidence of criticality for the specific location claimed, moving the location of the coupling port to be proximate the back of the user’s head would not alter the operation of the device of Lindemann, and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse. 86 USPO 70. See MPEP 2144.04. Moreover, rearranging the coupling port to be even closer to the back of the user’s head when worn would be beneficial as it would result in the components being closer to the user’s body and therefore a more compact design that reduces the risk of the hose getting caught on things that may be in the surrounding environment.
Regarding claim 13, Lindemann discloses: The assembly of claim 10, wherein the viewing window comprises the front of the hood (“the head hood 3 has a viewing window 5 in its front region” paragraph 30), and the area of the hood opposite the front of the hood is the back of the hood (the area opposite the front of the hood can be defined as the back of the hood), and wherein the aperture is located proximate the back of the hood (the aperture is located on the back of the hood, see figure 2; note that the hood was previously defined as including the head hood 3 and skirt 4).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lindemann, as evidenced by Wong (US 2020/0329806).
Regarding claim 19, Lindemann discloses: The assembly of claim 10, wherein the hardhat meets at least one of the following standards: EN 397:2012+A1, ANSI/ISEAZ89.1-2014, 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).
However, alternatively, should Applicant submit that the previously cited disclosure is not an explicit teaching of the hardhat meeting at least one of the claimed standards, it also 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 such that it is specifically compliant with known industry standards, 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” in 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 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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann in view of Stetson (US 2435167).
Regarding claim 12, Lindemann does not explicitly disclose: The assembly of claim 10, wherein the aperture comprises a biased aperture by use of an elastic material.
However, Stetson teaches a respirator hood assembly with an air hose that extends through an aperture, wherein the aperture is biased by the use of an elastic material (“the opening through which the air hose extends may be provided by a sleeve 13 sewed on or integral with the body of the hood, which sleeve is adapted to be closed around the exterior of the tube by […] elastic material, e.g., a rubber band” column 3, lines 32-37).
Stetson teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of respirator hoods. 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 an elastic material around the aperture of Lindemann, as taught by Stetson, in order to create a seal between the hood and the air hose which would further improve the protection of the user against chemicals in the environment by reducing the possibility that chemicals will enter the hood in the space between the aperture and the air hose.
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann in view of Asnis (US 2022/0087356).
Regarding claim 14, Lindemann discloses a compressed air cylinder or air compressor, but does not explicitly teach: The assembly of claim 10, further comprising: a fan assembly in fluidic communication with the air conduit via the coupling port.
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 respirators for use with helmets. 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.
Regarding claim 15, Lindemann as modified discloses: The assembly of claim 14, wherein the fan assembly is in communication with the coupling port via an air supply line (Lindemann, “the hose coupling 19 can be connected to […] a compressed air hose which leads to a stationary compressed air source (compressed air cylinders or compressor)” paragraph 40; as modified, the compressed air cylinder is replaced with a fan assembly as taught by Asnis, therefore the hose coupling 19 of Lindemann is in communication with the fan assembly of Asnis via an air hose as described by Lindemann).
Regarding claim 16, Lindemann as modified discloses: The assembly of claim 14, wherein the fan assembly provides a source of filtered air to the hood (as modified by Asnis, “blower 20 includes three filter elements 29a, 29b, 29c connected with the blower. One or more filter elements 29a, 29b, 29c are selected to remove contaminants from air drawn into blower unit 20 and delivered to helmet 10” Asnis, paragraphs 42-43; see also abstract of Asnis describing how filtered air is delivered to the user).
Regarding claim 17, Lindemann as modified discloses: The assembly of claim 16, wherein the hood defines a breathable air zone for the user (Lindemann, “the respirator device described here offers respirator protection both by a safe supply of breathing air” paragraph 42).
Regarding claim 18, Lindemann as modified discloses: The assembly of claim 17, wherein the first and second hood coupling assemblies couple the hood to the hardhat via attachment points on the viewing window (Lindemann, “The edges of the viewing window can be connected to the edges 22, 23 of the retaining web 8 via the push button parts 24, 25, so that the viewing window 5 of the head hood 3 is securely fixed in front of the eyes of the wearer of the protective helmet 2” paragraph 41; see figures 1 and 3).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
/PATRICK J. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights