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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 12/9/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 and 11 are canceled in accordance with Applicant’s amendment filed 12/9/2025. Claims 10 and 12-19 read on the elected species and 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 13 objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein aperture is located proximate the back of the hood” should be “wherein the aperture is located proximate the back of the hood”. 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.
Claim 10, 12-19 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 10, the claim recites the limitation “the first and second hood coupling assemblies extend downward from the brim of the hardhat”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear whether the claim requires the first and second hood coupling assemblies to be part of the brim of the hard hat (i.e., the coupling assemblies are a downward extension OF the brim) or if it is sufficient for the first and second hood coupling assemblies to be part of another component so long as they extend below the brim of the hard hat. Since the instant application discloses that the first and second hood coupling assemblies are a part of the adapter (see figure 5) and attach to the hard hat via the adapter (as claimed), this limitation has been interpreted as requiring that the first and second hood coupling assemblies must be positioned so they extend below the brim of the hard hat, but they are not an integral part of the brim of the hard hat and do not directly extend FROM the brim of the hard hat.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “the aperture comprises an elastic material”. This limitation is unclear because an aperture is understood to be a hole or opening, which by definition does not have any material, so it not clear how an aperture (hole, opening) can comprise an elastic material. It appears that Applicant is attempting to claim that there is an elastic material surrounding the aperture, and for the purposes of examination, the claim has been interpreted as such.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiency by nature of dependency.
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 10, 12-19 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 10, the claim recites the limitation “first and second hood coupling assemblies extend downward from the brim of the hardhat and sit proximate temple regions of the user’s head”. The italicized limitations require a human organism because the structure of the invention is defined in reference to the temple regions of a user’s head and does not include any recitation of intended use such as “when worn”.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiency by nature of dependency.
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 (DE102015108563A1), a machine translation of which is provided with this Office action.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood by Examiner, 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 extend downward from the brim of the hardhat and sit proximate temple regions of the user's head (“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 downward from 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.
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 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 as best understood by Examiner, Lindemann does not explicitly disclose: The assembly of claim 10, wherein the aperture comprises an elastic material.
However, Stetson teaches a respirator hood assembly with an air hose that extends through an aperture, wherein there is an elastic material surrounding the aperture (“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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Walker (US 2010/0108067), Walker (US 2010/0263671), Herr-Rathke (US 2022/0023675), Scholes (US 2023/0293918), Gibbons (US 2896617) all teach various air supply/respirator assemblies with hoods.
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