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 5/20/2026, claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 13-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome some of the previously presented rejections under 35 USC 112(b), and it has introduced new ones.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previously presented objections to the drawings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 USC 112(b):
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Applicant argues that the amendments have overcome the previously presented rejections. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and submits that the newly added limitations are indefinite as written, as described in the new rejections below. These new rejections were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Rejections under 35 USC 103:
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that “the descriptions in the annotations provided by the Office do not appear to match the actual descriptions of those elements” (Remarks, page 15). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the “descriptions” of various elements found in the specification) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, Applicant's arguments 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. Applicant’s argument state “the Office asserts ‘pin 118’ is a clip dowel, and that the ‘shade element 102’ is a clip flap” (Remarks, page 15), but does not further explain why the structures relied upon in the rejection allegedly do not read on the claim limitations as written. Examiner maintains that the prior art reads on the claims as written.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Applicant argues that “the Examiner has not shown that the use of two adjacent shield clips, which lend balanced structural support to the face shield on which they are mounted by being positioned on opposing sides of the center of the face shield sheet, was ‘well known in the industry’” (Remarks, page 16). Examiner respectfully disagrees, and again notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the “two adjacent shield clips, which lend balanced structural support to the face shield on which they are mounted by being positioned on opposing sides of the center of the face shield sheet”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 3 merely requires “two shield clips” with no further details, and Examiner maintains that it is obvious to provide two clips for the reasons set forth in the rejection which Applicant has not argued separately (“an additional shield clip would allow for improved shading capabilities because more area in front of the user’s face could be covered by using two shield clips instead of just one” Nonfinal rejection mailed 11/20/2025, page 13). Claim 4’s recitation of the positioning of the shield clips is an intended use, and Examiner maintains that the two shield clips (as modified in claim 3) would be positioned adjacent to each other as modified insofar as defined by the claim. Neither claim 3 nor 4 discusses balance or positively claims any particular positioning for the shield clips as in both claims the shield clips are merely “configured to connect” to the face shield sheet as recited in claim 1. Examiner maintains that the prior art reads on the claims as written.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant argues that “the art of record does not teach or suggest that the claimed shield clips are attached over the reinforcement tab as claimed” (Remarks, page 16-17). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in the rejection of claim 1, the face shield of Rome, the primary reference, already has at least one reinforcement tab along its top edge. Rome was modified to also include the shield clip from Danko, which was specifically added to the top edge in the modification (“add the clip of Danko to the top edge of the shield of Rome in order to allow the user to selectively shade their eyes from the sun or harsh overhead lights while also allowing the shade to be moved out of the way when it is not needed” Nonfinal rejection mailed 11/20/2025, page 12), therefore it reasonably follows and would be clearly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the clip would attach over any reinforcement tabs that already exist on the shield of Rome as it attaches to the top edge of the shield assembly, as stated in the rejection of claim 5. Examiner maintains that the prior art reads on the claim as written.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant asserts that the amendment has rendered the rejection moot. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that the prior art reads on the amended claim, as described in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant asserts that the prior art does not teach an alignment brace as newly amended into the claim. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that the prior art reads on the amended claim as written, as described in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant asserts that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that the prior art reads on the amended claim as written, as described in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant asserts that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that the prior art reads on the amended claim as written, as described in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant asserts that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that the prior art reads on the amended claim as written, as described in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 19, Applicant asserts that the prior art does not teach the amended limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that the prior art reads on the amended claim as written, as described in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 20, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Allowable subject matter has been indicated as described below.
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 4, 11 are 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 4, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the two shield clips are positioned adjacent to one another on opposing sides of the center of the face shield sheet”. This limitation is unclear because claim 1 previously recited “at least one shield clip configured to connect to the face shield sheet”, which is not a positive recitation of the clips being on the face shield sheet. Therefore, it is unclear whether the shield clips need to be connected to the sheet in the claimed position or if the shield clips in this claim are still configured to connect to the face shield sheet in the described position. For the purposes of examination, the shield clips will be interpreted as configured to connect to the face shield sheet in the described position.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the limitation “the at least one reinforcement tab comprises: a plurality of reinforcement tabs, with one of the plurality of reinforcement tabs on the face shield sheet, and the remaining plurality of reinforcement tabs configured to be disposed one on top of the other”. This limitation is unclear because claim 1 recites “at least one reinforcement tab affixed to the face shield sheet”, which requires all of the “at least one reinforcement tabs” to be affixed to the face shield sheet (i.e., when claim 11 redefines “at least one” to be “a plurality”, then all of the plurality must be affixed to the face shield sheet in order for the claim to be in accordance with the claim from which it depends); however, claim 11 also attempts to claim that only one of the reinforcement tabs is affixed, which contradicts the previous recitation in claim 1 and introduces confusion. For the purposes of examination, the claim has been interpreted as requiring at least one reinforcement tab affixed to the face shield sheet (as defined in claim 1) and, additionally and separately, at least one additional reinforcement tab that is configured to be disposed on top of the at least one reinforcement tab affixed to the face shield sheet.
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) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rome (US 2021/0368888) in view of Danko (US 2017/0245574).
MPEP 2152.01 describes the effective filing date of a continuation-in-part application as follows: “(B) If the application is a continuation-in-part of an earlier U.S. application or international application, any claims in the new application not supported by the specification and claims of the parent application have an effective filing date equal to the actual filing date of the new application. Any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112 by the earlier parent application have the effective filing date of that earlier parent application.” In the instant case, all claims require limitations which are not supported by the specification and claims of the parent application, in particular the “at least one shield clip” limitation, therefore all claims are given the effective filing date equal to the actual filing date of the new application, which is 5/6/2025. Therefore, US 2021/0368888, which was published more than one year prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, is available as prior art.
Regarding claim 1, Rome discloses: A face shield comprising: a face shield sheet (105); at least one reinforcement tab (120) affixed to the face shield sheet (“a reinforcement tab 120 can be installed along a top portion 110 of the face shield sheet 105” paragraph 39); a head mount (150); and a cinch strap (160) inserted through at least one mounting hole (130) in the face shield sheet (“the cinch strap 160 geometry is such that it can be threaded into the mounting holes 130 on the face shield sheet 105” paragraph 47).
Rome does not explicitly disclose: at least one shield clip configured to connect to the face shield sheet, the at least one shield clip comprising: an outer rim comprising a U-shaped frame with two clip arms attached to a clip base; a first keeper attached to one of the clip arms; a second keeper attached to the other of the clip arms; a clip dowel engaged to the first keeper and the second keeper; and a clip flap attached to the clip dowel; and the head mount configured to be attached to the at least one shield clip.
However, Danko teaches: a clip on attachment (100) wherein the clip comprises: an outer rim comprising a U-shaped frame (see annotated figure 4 of Danko below) with two clip arms (Danko, 140, 142) attached to a clip base (see annotated figure 2 of Danko below); a first keeper attached to one of the clip arms (see annotated figure 2 below; the first keeper is attached to one of the clip arms via the hinge system); a second keeper attached to the other of the clip arms (see annotated figure 2 below; the second keeper is attached to the other of the clip arms via the hinge system); a clip dowel (Danko, 118) engaged to the first keeper and the second keeper (see annotated figure 2 below); and a clip flap attached to the clip dowel (Danko, 110).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
201
579
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Danko teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of clip attachments for head worn items. 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 the clip of Danko to the top edge of the shield of Rome in order to allow the user to selectively shade their eyes from the sun or harsh overhead lights while also allowing the shade to be moved out of the way when it is not needed (see Danko, paragraph 3). Examiner notes that, as modified, the head mount is configured to be attached to the at least one shield clip because it is a loose component and can be attached as desired, as the limitation is an intended use limitation, 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 Rome as modified has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written.
Regarding claim 2, Rome as modified discloses: The face shield of claim 1 wherein the at least one mounting hole comprises: two mounting holes (Rome, 130; see figure 1A showing there are two mounting holes 130) formed on the face shield sheet.
Regarding claim 3, Rome as modified does not explicitly disclose: The face shield of claim 1 wherein the at least one shield clip comprises: two shield clips.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a second shield clip of Danko to attach to the face shield sheet, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Further, an additional shield clip would allow for improved shading capabilities because more area in front of the user’s face could be covered by using two shield clips instead of just one.
Regarding claim 4, Rome as modified discloses: The face shield of claim 3 wherein the two shield clips are positioned adjacent to one another on opposing sides of the center of the face shield sheet (as modified, the two shield clips are adjacent to each other insofar as defined by the claim because they would both be on the face shield sheet, and further the italicized limitation is an intended use limitation as the shield clips have only been recited as “configured to connect to the face shield sheet”. 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 Rome as modified has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written.).
Regarding claim 5, Rome as modified discloses: The face shield of claim 3 wherein the two shield clips are attached to the face shield sheet over the at least one reinforcement tab (as modified, the shield clips are attached over the reinforcement tab as the reinforcement tab is located along the top edge, and the shield clips attach on the top edge as well).
Regarding claim 6, Rome as modified discloses: The face shield of claim 1 further comprising: an adhesive (Rome, 125) disposed on the at least one reinforcement tab (Rome, “the reinforcement tab 120 can comprise an independent stiffened strip, such as a plastic strip, with adhesive 125 on one side” paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 7, Rome as modified discloses: The face shield of claim 1 wherein the head mount comprises: a cuboid cushion (Rome, “the head mount 150 can comprise a cube or cuboid, formed of a generally soft or malleable material such as foam or rubber” paragraph 43); and an adhesive disposed on one side of the cuboid cushion (Rome, 155; “one surface of the head mount 150 can be coated with an adhesive 155” paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 8, Rome as modified discloses: The face shield of claim 1 wherein the cinch strap comprises: a planar, flat strap (Rome, “the cinch strap 160 can comprise a planar, flat strap” paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 9, Rome as modified discloses: The face shield of claim 1 wherein the cinch strap further comprises: a plurality of teeth formed on a first edge of the cinch strap (Rome, “along most or the entire length of the two opposing edges 210 and 215 of the strap 205 are teeth 220 in a repeating and uniform pattern” paragraph 46); and a second plurality of teeth formed on a second edge of the cinch strap (Rome, “along most or the entire length of the two opposing edges 210 and 215 of the strap 205 are teeth 220 in a repeating and uniform pattern” paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 10, Rome as modified discloses: The face shield of claim 1 wherein the cinch strap further comprises: a first grab tip on a first end of the cinch strap, the first grab tip comprising smooth edges; and a second grab tip on the second end of the cinch strap, the second grab tip comprising smooth edges (Rome, “the cinch strap is smooth and lacks teeth at the distal ends 170 of the strap” paragraph 46; the two distal ends 170 can be considered “grab tips” insofar as defined by the claim as they can be grabbed, and they are considered to have smooth edges because they are smooth and lack teeth).
Regarding claim 11, Rome as modified discloses: The face shield of claim 1 wherein the at least one reinforcement tab comprises: a plurality of reinforcement tabs, with one of the plurality of reinforcement tabs on the face shield sheet, and the remaining plurality of reinforcement tabs configured to be disposed one on top of the other (Rome, “multiple reinforcement tabs 120 can be overlaid or distributed on the face shield sheet 105” paragraph 39).
Regarding claim 12, Rome as modified discloses: The face shield of claim 1 wherein the at least one reinforcement tab is further configured to be concave (Rome, “the reinforcement tab 120 can be biased with a curvature so as to be concave” paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 13, Rome as modified discloses: The face shield of claim 1 wherein the at least one shield clip comprises: an alignment brace formed on the clip flap (see annotated figure 2 of Danko below showing the alignment brace on the clip flap).
PNG
media_image3.png
472
775
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Rome as modified discloses: The face shield of claim 13 wherein the first keeper is connected to an end of the clip dowel; and the second keeper is connected to another end of the clip dowel (see annotated figure 2 of Danko provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above, when the clip dowel is inserted, the first keeper is connected to one end of the clip dowel and the second keeper is connected to another end of the clip dowel).
Regarding claim 15, Rome discloses: A face shield system comprising: a face shield sheet (105); at least one reinforcement tab (120) affixed to the face shield sheet (“a reinforcement tab 120 can be installed along a top portion 110 of the face shield sheet 105” paragraph 39); a head mount (150); two mounting holes (130) configured on the face shield sheet (“mounting holes 130 can be formed in the face shield sheet 105” paragraph 42; see figure 1A showing there are two mounting holes 130); and a cinch strap (160) inserted through at least one mounting hole in the face shield sheet (“the cinch strap 160 geometry is such that it can be threaded into the mounting holes 130 on the face shield sheet 105” paragraph 47).
Rome does not explicitly disclose: at least one shield clip configured to pinch the face shield sheet between an outer rim and a clip flap of the shield clip; and the head mount configured to be attached to the at least one shield clip.
However, Danko teaches: a clip on attachment (100) including a rotatable flap (110) that can be attached to headwear to provide selective shade to a user’s eyes (see paragraph 3). The clip can be folded into a configuration in which it can pinch a sheet between the outer rim and clip flap, as shown in annotated figure 6 below, which shows the clip flap rotated so it abuts the outer rim.
PNG
media_image4.png
269
405
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Danko teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of clip attachments for head worn items. 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 the clip of Danko to the top edge of the shield of Rome in order to allow the user to selectively shade their eyes from the sun or harsh overhead lights while also allowing the shade to be moved out of the way when it is not needed (see Danko, paragraph 3). Examiner notes that, as modified, the shield clip is configured to pinch the face shield sheet between an outer rim and a clip flap of the shield clip as the clip flap can be rotated so it abuts the outer rim as shown in figure 6 of Danko above, and the head mount is configured to be attached to the at least one shield clip because it is a loose component and can be attached as desired, as the limitations are 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 Rome as modified has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written.
Regarding claim 16, Rome as modified discloses: The face shield system of claim 15 wherein the head mount comprises: a cuboid cushion (Rome, “the head mount 150 can comprise a cube or cuboid, formed of a generally soft or malleable material such as foam or rubber” paragraph 43); and an adhesive disposed on one side of the cuboid cushion (Rome, 155; “one surface of the head mount 150 can be coated with an adhesive 155” paragraph 43); and a protective cover (Rome, 180) overlaying the adhesive disposed on one side of the cuboid cushion (Rome, “the adhesive 155 can be covered again, by a cover 180” paragraph 43).
Regarding claim 17, Rome as modified discloses: The face shield system of claim 15 wherein the cinch strap comprises: a planar, flat strap (Rome, “the cinch strap 160 can comprise a planar, flat strap” paragraph 46); a plurality of teeth formed on a first edge of the cinch strap (Rome, “along most or the entire length of the two opposing edges 210 and 215 of the strap 205 are teeth 220 in a repeating and uniform pattern” paragraph 46); and a plurality of teeth formed on a second edge of the cinch strap (Rome, “along most or the entire length of the two opposing edges 210 and 215 of the strap 205 are teeth 220 in a repeating and uniform pattern” paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 18, Rome discloses: A face shield comprising: a face shield sheet (105); a head mount (150); and a cinch strap (160) inserted through at least one mounting hole (130) in the face shield sheet (“the cinch strap 160 geometry is such that it can be threaded into the mounting holes 130 on the face shield sheet 105” paragraph 47) and configured to be bound around a head (“the cinch strap 160 can be configured to fit around a user’s head” paragraph 45; see also paragraph 55).
Rome does not explicitly disclose: at least one shield clip configured to connect to the face shield sheet, the at least one shield clip comprising: an outer rim comprising a U-shaped frame with two clip arms attached to a clip base; a first keeper attached to one of the clip arms; a second keeper attached to the other of the clip arms; a clip dowel engaged to the first keeper and the second keeper; and a clip flap attached to the clip dowel; and the head mount configured to be attached to the at least one shield clip.
However, Danko teaches: a clip on attachment (100) wherein the clip comprises: an outer rim comprising a U-shaped frame (see annotated figure 4 of Danko provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above) with two clip arms (Danko, 140, 142) attached to a clip base (see annotated figure 2 of Danko provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above); a first keeper attached to one of the clip arms (see annotated figure 2 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above; the first keeper is attached to one of the clip arms via the hinge system); a second keeper attached to the other of the clip arms (see annotated figure 2 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above; the second keeper is attached to the other of the clip arms via the hinge system); a clip dowel (Danko, 118) engaged to the first keeper and the second keeper (see annotated figure 2 provided with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above); and a clip flap attached to the clip dowel (Danko, 110).
Danko teaches analogous art to the instant application in the field of clip attachments for head worn items. 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 the clip of Danko to the top edge of the shield of Rome in order to allow the user to selectively shade their eyes from the sun or harsh overhead lights while also allowing the shade to be moved out of the way when it is not needed (see Danko, paragraph 3). Examiner notes that, as modified, the head mount is configured to be attached to the at least one shield clip because it is a loose component and can be attached as desired, as the limitation is an intended use limitation, 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 Rome as modified has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written.
Regarding claim 19, Rome as modified discloses: The face shield of claim 18 wherein the at least one shield clip is configured to pinch the face shield between the outer rim and clip flap clip flap (Danko, see figure 6 annotated with the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 15 above showing the clip flap rotated so it abuts the outer rim; Examiner notes that this limitation is an intended use limitation, 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 Rome as modified has all of the claimed structural limitations, it reads on the claim as written.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 20, the prior art does not, alone or in combination, teach all of the limitations of claim 20. The closest prior art is Rome in view of Danko as applied to claim 19 (see 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 19 above). In addition to the limitations of claim 19, claim 20 requires “a first spring in the first keeper connected to an end of the clip dowel; and a second spring in the second keeper connected to another end of the clip dowel”. Danko teaches a first and second keeper and a clip dowel, however the clip dowel itself is a spring pin (coiled spring pin 118), and there is no disclosure of additional springs that are further connected to each end of the component 118. It would not have been obvious to modify Danko to have further additional springs as claimed, as the spring pins 118 already provide the functionality of a spring in the hinge. Therefore, the claim contains allowable subject matter.
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
/CLINTON T OSTRUP/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
