DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-7 & 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 1 & 16 fail to recite sufficient structural elements and the interconnection of elements to positively position and define the “base is configured to engage the hinge body to prevent translation of the hinge body relative to the frame” [Claim 1] & “the hinge assembly is configured to selectively limit movement of the arm relative to the hinge body based on a user input” [Claim 16], so that an integral structural apparatus is set forth which is able to function as claimed.
Consequently, the remaining claims are rejected since they are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Charlier et al., [US 2019/0110613]. Charlier teaches of an adjustable breath guard (10), comprising: a frame (100); a shield (132); and a hinge assembly (as best shown in fig. 2 for instance) including a base (115) fixedly coupled to the frame and a hinge body (134) coupled to the shield, wherein the hinge body is pivotally coupled to the base (shown in figs. 4-5 for example), and wherein the base is configured to engage the hinge body to prevent translation of the hinge body relative to the frame (such as via components (170, 172) as best understood in view of the 112(b) rejection), wherein the hinge assembly is reconfigurable between (a) an engaged configuration (such as is shown in fig. 4) in which the hinge assembly limits downward movement of the shield and permits upward movement of the shield and (b) a disengaged configuration (such as a position in between the figures 4 & 5 position for instance) in which the shield permits both downward movement of the shield and upward movement of the shield; and wherein the hinge assembly is configured to change from the engaged configuration to the disengaged configuration in response to the shield moving upward (upward / leftward movement along direction (166) enables disengagement of the shield). As to Claim 2, the hinge assembly is configured to change from the engaged configuration to the disengaged configuration in response to the shield moving upward into a release position (upward / leftward movement of the shield releases a pawl thereby enabling disengagement). As to Claim 3, the hinge assembly is configured to change from the disengaged configuration to the engaged configuration in response to the shield moving downward (the pawl is able to engage and remain fixed when the shield moves in a downward / rightward direction). As to Claim 4, the hinge assembly is configured to change from the disengaged configuration to the engaged configuration in response to the shield moving downward into an engagement position (disclosed). As to Claim 5, the shield is rotatable between a plurality of discrete positions (note fig. 6 for instance), and wherein the hinge assembly is configured to prevent the downward movement of the shield when the shield is in one of the discrete positions and the hinge assembly is in the engaged configuration (the shield can remain fixed in any of the discrete positions). As to Claim 6, the guard further comprising an arm (138) coupling the shield to the hinge body (fig. 3). As to Claim 7, the shield is fixedly coupled to the hinge body. Regarding Claim 8, again Charlier teaches of an adjustable breath guard (10), comprising: a frame (100); a shield (132); a first hinge assembly (left side hinge assembly – fig. 3) including a first base (115) fixedly coupled to the frame and a first hinge body (viewed as the left side portion of (134) – it is noted that component (134) may include two or more separate pieces, with each piece be arranged to cover a span of (132) along an end near (114) [0047]) coupled to the shield, wherein the first hinge body pivotally couples the shield to the first base (left side – fig. 3); and a second hinge assembly (right side hinge assembly – fig. 3) including a second base (115) fixedly coupled to the frame and a second hinge body (viewed as the right side portion of (134) – it is noted that component (134) may include two or more separate pieces, with each piece be arranged to cover a span of (132) along an end near (114) [0047]) coupled to the shield, wherein the second hinge body pivotally couples the shield to the second base (right side – fig. 3), wherein the first hinge assembly is reconfigurable between (a) an engaged configuration (such as shown in fig. 4) in which the first hinge assembly limits downward movement of the shield and permits upward movement of the shield and (b) a disengaged configuration (such as a position in between the figures 4 & 5 position for instance) in which the shield permits both downward movement of the shield and upward movement of the shield; wherein the first hinge assembly is configured to change from the engaged configuration to the disengaged configuration in response to the shield moving upward (upward / leftward movement along direction (166) enables disengagement of the shield); and wherein the first hinge body and the second hinge body are configured to fully support the shield at least when the first hinge assembly is in the engaged configuration (note fig. 1 for instance). As to Claim 9, the first hinge assembly is configured to change from the engaged configuration to the disengaged configuration in response to the shield moving upward into a release position (upward / leftward movement of the shield releases a pawl thereby enabling disengagement). As to Claim 10, the first hinge assembly is configured to change from the disengaged configuration to the engaged configuration in response to the shield moving downward (the pawl is able to engage and remain fixed when the shield moves in a downward / rightward direction). As to Claim 11, the first hinge assembly is configured to change from the disengaged configuration to the engaged configuration in response to the shield moving downward into an engagement position (disclosed). As to Claim 12, the shield is rotatable between a plurality of discrete positions (note fig. 6 for instance), and wherein the first hinge assembly is configured to prevent the downward movement of the shield when the shield is in one of the discrete positions and the first hinge assembly is in the engaged configuration (the shield can remain fixed in any of the discrete positions). As to Claim 13, the second hinge assembly permits both downward movement of the shield and upward movement of the shield (as dependent upon cooperation with the first hinge assembly). As to Claim 14, the frame includes a first frame member (left 110) fixedly coupled to the first base and a second frame member (right 110) fixedly coupled to the second base, and wherein the shield extends between the first frame member and the second frame member (fig. 3). As to Claim 15, the first hinge body is positioned between the first frame member and the second frame member (shown – fig. 3). Regarding Claim 16, again, Charlier teaches of an adjustable breath guard (10), comprising: a frame (100); a shield (132); a hinge assembly (as best shown in fig. 2) including a base (115) coupled to the frame and a hinge body (134) pivotally coupled to the base; and an arm (138) fixedly coupled to the shield (in the sense that they are fixedly attached in the assembled state) and slidably coupled to the hinge body (i.e., the arm can slide into the hinge body upon insertion) such that the shield is translatable relative to the hinge body (in a manner similar to applicant’s representation), wherein the hinge assembly is configured to selectively limit movement of the arm relative to the hinge body based on a user input, wherein the hinge assembly is reconfigurable between (a) an engaged configuration (such as shown in fig. 4) in which the hinge assembly limits downward movement of the shield and permits upward movement of the shield and (b) a disengaged configuration (such as a position in between the figures 4 & 5 position for instance) in which the shield permits both downward movement of the shield and upward movement of the shield; and wherein the hinge assembly is configured to change from the engaged configuration to the disengaged configuration in response to the shield moving upward (upward / leftward movement along direction (166) enables disengagement of the shield). As to Claim 17, the arm is translatable relative to the hinge body along an axis that extends parallel to the arm (such as a sliding in and out direction {left to right} as shown in fig. 3). As to Claim 18, the hinge body defines an arm passage (space between the flanges as best shown in fig. 2) that receives the arm, and wherein the axis extends through the arm passage (fig. 3). As to Claim 19, the hinge assembly is configured to selectively fix the arm to the hinge body in response to the user input (such as assembly step). As to Claim 20, the hinge assembly includes a user interface member (such as (210)), and wherein the user input includes repositioning the user interface member (such as during the assembling of components – so far as broadly recited).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing various adjustable guard assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
JOH
September 15, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights