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 .
A power of attorney is on file for this application, received 5/23/2025.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/461,163, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application as follows: Claim 1 recites the visor comprising a third portion extending from the second portion circumferentially around a front portion of the shell and extending radially outward from the shell. Claim 5 recites the accessory mounting ridge comprises a port and the frame is coupled to the port. Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and recites the frame further comprises a clip and the clip is positioned within the port. Claim 8 recites a third portion extending from the second portion circumferentially around another portion of the shell and extending radially outward from the shell. Claim 11 recites the first flap is positioned between the third portion of the visor and the second flap. Claim 12 recites the first relief portion is positioned along an interior edge of the visor and adjacent to the hard hat. Accordingly, claims 1 and 8 and their dependent claims receive the effective filing date of the present application-5/23/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 8, Subspecies A (Figs. 23-39) in the reply filed on 5/6/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant submits claims 1-14 encompass the elected species/subspecies. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn as non-elected.
Specification
The term “clip” is indicated by reference numbers 242 and 246; however, 242 and 246 appear to represent different structures in the drawings (see Figs.23 and 24 for example).
Paragraph 114: “auxiliary rides 26” should be revised to recite “auxiliary ridges 26”.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 1 recites the visor comprising a third portion extending from the second portion circumferentially around a front portion of the shell and extending radially outward from the shell. Claim 5 recites the accessory mounting ridge comprises a port and the frame is coupled to the port. Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and recites the frame further comprises a clip and the clip is positioned within the port. Claim 8 recites a third portion extending from the second portion circumferentially around another portion of the shell and extending radially outward from the shell. Claim 11 recites the first flap is positioned between the third portion of the visor and the second flap. Claim 12 recites the first relief portion is positioned along an interior edge of the visor and adjacent to the hard hat.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the accessory mounting ridge positioned on an exterior surface of the shell (claim 1) and the accessory mounting ridge of the hard hat further comprises a port and the frame is coupled to the port (claim 5) and the first relief portion is positioned along an interior edge of the visor and adjacent to the hard hat (claim 12) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Frame 240 is illustrated in Fig.23 and 24, as well as in Figs. 31, 32, and 36. However, the frame of Fig.23 is different from that of Figs. 24, 31, 32, and 36.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(2) as being anticipated by Kinzer et al. (U.S. 10,874,159). Kinzer discloses the invention as claimed. Kinzer teaches a hard hat system comprising: a hard hat 10 comprising: a shell 20; and an accessory mounting ridge (see annotated drawing) positioned on an exterior surface of the shell; a frame 22 supported by the hard hat; a visor 50 coupled to the hard hat 10 via the frame 22, the visor 50 comprising: a first portion extending circumferentially around a rear portion of the shell (see annotated drawing) and extending radially outward from the shell; a second portion coupled to the first portion (see annotated drawing) and positioned adjacent to the accessory mounting ridge; and a third portion extending from the second portion circumferentially around a front portion of the shell and extending radially outward from the shell (see annotated drawing).
For claim 3, Kinzer teaches the hard hat system of claim 1, the second portion comprising a first section on a first lateral side of the shell (first section is positioned adjacent to the accessory mounting ridge) and a second section on a second lateral side of the shell opposite the first lateral side (portion rearward of the third portion and opposite the first lateral side).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande (U.S. 11,452,327) in view of Starbuck (AU 2011101018 A4). Deshpande discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Deshpande teaches a hard hat system comprising: a hard hat 100 comprising: a shell 1; and an accessory mounting ridge 5 positioned on an exterior surface of the shell; a frame 7 supported by the hard hat. However, Deshpande doesn’t teach a visor coupled to the hard hat via the frame, the visor comprising: a first portion extending circumferentially around a rear portion of the shell and extending radially outward from the shell; a second portion coupled to the first portion and positioned adjacent to the accessory mounting ridge; and a third portion extending from the second portion circumferentially around a front portion of the shell and extending radially outward from the shell. Starbuck teaches a visor 10 coupled to a hard hat via hook and loop fasteners as on pg. 4, lines 25-26. The visor comprises a first portion extending circumferentially around a rear portion 38 of the shell and extending radially outward from the shell 1, a second portion coupled to the first portion and positioned adjacent to the accessory mounting ridge, and a third portion extending from the second portion circumferentially around a front portion 36 of the shell and extending radially outward from the shell. See annotated drawing for specifics. Based on Starbuck’s teaching of the hook and loop fasteners for securing the visor to the hard hat, one of ordinary skill could have selected to provide Deshpande’s frame 7 with hook and loop for coupling to the visor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deshpande to provide the visor coupled to the hard hat via the frame, the visor comprising: a first portion extending circumferentially around a rear portion of the shell and extending radially outward from the shell; a second portion coupled to the first portion and positioned adjacent to the accessory mounting ridge; and a third portion extending from the second portion circumferentially around a front portion of the shell and extending radially outward from the shell as taught by Starbuck, for protecting the wearer’s neck and face while also accommodating additional protective accessories such as hearing protection.
For claim 2, Deshpande doesn’t teach the hard hat system of claim 1, wherein the second portion of the visor includes a flap, and wherein the flap is configured to receive an accessory. Starbuck teaches the second portion of the visor 10 includes a flap 20, and the flap 20 is configured to receive an accessory (earmuff arm 46 is received by flap opening 56). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deshpande’s visor such that the second portion includes a flap configured to receive an accessory, as Starbuck teaches the flap is configured to receive an earmuff accessory without displacing the visor.
For claim 3, Deshpande doesn’t teach the hard hat system of claim 1, wherein the second portion comprising a first section on a first lateral side of the shell and a second section on a second lateral side of the shell opposite the first lateral side. Starbuck’s second portion (see annotated drawing) comprises a first section on a first lateral side of the shell and a second section on a second lateral side of the shell opposite the first lateral side. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deshphande’s second portion to comprise a first section on a first lateral side of the shell and a second section on a second lateral side of the shell opposite the first lateral side, as Starbuck teaches this structure accommodates both arms of hearing protective earmuffs.
For claim 4, Deshpande’s hard hat system of claim 3 includes the frame 7 extending around the rear portion of the shell 1, and wherein the rear portion of the shell 1 is positioned between the first lateral side of the shell and the second lateral side of the shell.
For claim 7, Deshpande teaches the hard hat system of claim 1, wherein the frame 7has a U-shape as Figure 1 shows frame 7 with a U-shaped periphery.
For claim 8, Deshpande teaches a hard hat system comprising: a hard hat 100 comprising:
a shell 1; and an auxiliary mounting ridge 6 located on a lateral, exterior surface of the shell 1; a frame 7 supported by the hard hat 100. However, Deshpande doesn’t teach a visor coupled to the hard hat via the frame, the visor comprising: a first portion extending circumferentially around a portion of the shell and extending radially outward from the shell; and a second portion coupled to the first portion and positioned adjacent to the auxiliary mounting ridge, the second portion comprising a first relief portion; and a third portion extending from the second portion circumferentially around another portion of the shell and extending radially outward from the shell. Starbuck teaches a visor 10 coupled to a hard hat via hook and loop fasteners as on pg. 4, lines 25-26. The visor comprises a first portion extending circumferentially around a portion of the shell and extending radially outward from the shell 1, a second portion coupled to the first portion and positioned adjacent to the accessory mounting ridge, and a third portion extending from the second portion circumferentially around a front portion 36 of the shell and extending radially outward from the shell (see annotated drawing). Note that the modification of Deshpande includes Starbuck’s second portion positioned adjacent to the accessory mounting ridge. Based on Starbuck’s teaching of the hook and loop fasteners for securing the visor to the hard hat, one of ordinary skill could have selected to provide Deshpande’s frame 7 with hook and loop for coupling to the visor 10. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deshpande to provide the visor coupled to the hard hat via the frame, the visor comprising: a first portion extending circumferentially around a portion of the shell and extending radially outward from the shell; a second portion coupled to the first portion and positioned adjacent to the accessory mounting ridge; the second portion comprising a first relief portion and a third portion extending from the second portion circumferentially around another portion of the shell and extending radially outward from the shell as taught by Starbuck, for protecting the wearer’s neck and face while also accommodating additional protective accessories such as hearing protection.
For claim 9, Deshpande doesn’t teach the hard hat system of claim 8, wherein the first relief portion is a flap. Starbuck teaches the first relief portion is a flap 20.
For claim 10, Deshpande doesn’t teach the hard hat system of claim 8, wherein the first relief portion is a first flap and wherein the second portion of the visor further comprises a second flap. Starbuck teaches the first relief portion is a first flap 20 and wherein the second portion of the visor further comprises a second flap 22. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deshpande’s hard hat system such that the first relief portion is a first flap and wherein the second portion of the visor further comprises a second flap, as Starbuck teaches the flaps accommodate arms of hearing protection earmuffs without having to displace or remove the visor for use.
For claim 11, Deshpande’s modified hard hat system of claim 10 includes first flap 20 positioned between the third portion of the visor 10 and the second flap 22 as in Starbuck’s Figure 2A.
For claim 12, Deshpande’s modified hard hat system of claim 8 includes the first relief portion 20 positioned along an interior edge of the visor and adjacent to the hard hat as cutout 16 has an interior edge.
For claim 13, Deshpande’s modified hard hat system of claim 8 includes the visor 10 comprising a first folding location 24 on a first side of the visor and a second folding location 24 on a second side of the visor opposite the first side as each flap’s bottom edge is attached to disc portion 12 of the visor 10 and folds to open or close the cutout sections 16,18. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deshpande to provide the first folding location on a first side of the visor and a second folding location on a second side of the visor opposite the first side as Starbuck teaches the flaps can be open or closed over to provide the opening for the arm of the hearing protection earmuffs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Deshpande to provide the first and second folding locations according to the wearer’s preferences and need for accommodating accessories.
For claim 14, Deshpande’s modified hard hat system of claim 8, doesn’t teach the visor further comprises a flex point positioned between the first relief portion and the first portion of the visor. Starbuck teaches a flex point (at edge 24) positioned between the first relief portion and the first portion of the visor.
PNG
media_image2.png
406
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are 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 prior art of Deshpande and Starbuck and Kinzer doesn’t teach the frame coupled to the port and the frame further comprising a clip positioned within the port.
Conclusion
Reference listed on the 892 that are not employed in the rejections are considered relevant to the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Primary Examiner Katherine Moran at (571) 272-4990 (phone). Please note that any internet communication directed to katherine.moran@uspto.gov requires prior submission of an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439). The examiner can be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, and alternating Fridays.If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Khoa Huynh, may be reached at (571) 272-4888. The official and after final fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273-8300. General information regarding this application and
questions directed to matters of form and procedures may be directed to the PTO Contact
Center/Inventors Assistance Center at (800) 786-9199/571-272-1000. Information regarding the status
of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system.
Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For questions on
access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
free).
/KATHERINE M MORAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights