DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to application filed on May 27th, 2025 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
This application, which discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. 18/102,194, filed 1/27/23, appears to claim only subject matter directed to an invention that is independent and distinct from that claimed in the prior application, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a divisional application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Applicant will need to: 1) file a corrected Application Data Sheet, and 2) request a corrected filing receipt to correct the application into a divisional.
Specification
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 2 “replacement rear strap is made of stretchable fabric” is not in the specification; support is found in Claim 6 of the parent application 18/102,194; however, specification currently only indicates that [0031] “the replacement strap 106 is manufactured from an elastic material that stretches”; examiner recommends [0031] delete “elastic material” and substitute –elastic fabric material—
Claim 7 “each of the pair of attachment bosses is circle shaped” is not in the specification; [0012] indicates that each of the adapter ring apertures correspond to the bosses and are sized for bosses, and that the adapter ring apertures can be D-shaped or circle shaped; original disclosure also indicates that the adapter ring apertures and bosses can both be D-shaped; however, disclosure does not currently explicitly disclose that the bosses can be circle shaped; examiner recommends [0012] After “Each of the adapter ring apertures” add –and bosses—
Claims 10, 18 is/are objected to for reasons similar to Claim 2
Claim 15 is objected to for reasons similar to Claim 7
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 9, 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 Line 3 before “headgear” delete “a” and substitute –the—for proper antecedent basis with Claim 9 Line 1
Claim 9 Line 4 before “replacement” delete “the” and substitute –a—
Claim 20 Lines 1-2 before “pair of adapter rings” add –the—
Claim 20 Line 2 before “same” delete “the” and substitute –a--
Disagreement with any of the aforementioned may warrant at least a 112(b) indefiniteness rejection without constituting a new rejection
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “an attachment boss” in Claim 1 Lines 5-6 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this term relates to “pair of attachment bosses” in Claim 1 Line 2. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term “an attachment boss” will be considered “a respective one of the pair of attachment bosses.”
The term “an attachment boss” in Claim 4 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this term relates to “an attachment boss” of Claim 1 Lines 5-6 or “pair of attachment bosses” of Claim 1 Line 2. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, Claim 4 will be interpreted “engage the respective one of the pair of attachment bosses.”
Relatedly, the term “an attachment boss” in Claim 9 Line 5 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this term relates to “pair of attachment bosses” in Claim 9 Line 2. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term “an attachment boss” will be considered “a respective one of the pair of attachment bosses.”
Relatedly, the term “a corresponding one of the pair of attachment bosses” in Claim 12 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how this term relates to “an attachment boss” in Claim 9 Line 5 or “pair of attachment bosses” of Claim 9 Line 2. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, Claim 12 Line 2 will be interpreted as “placed correspondingly over the respective one of the pair of attachment bosses.”
The term “A method …comprising…a rear strap…removing the headgear assembly…modifying…by connecting a replacement rear strap” in Claim 17 Lines 1-4 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether Claim 17 inadvertently omitted reciting the removal of the rear strap, or if Claim 17 should have recited “removing the rear strap” instead of “removing the headgear assembly.” Otherwise, Claim 17 currently recites a modified helmet having both a rear strap and a replacement rear strap. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “removing the rear strap of the headgear assembly from the helmet.”
The term “a hub” in Claim 17 Line 6 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term relates to “a pair of hubs” in Claim 17 Line 2. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “a one of the pair of hubs.”
The term “an adapter ring” in Claim 19 Line 3 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the term relates to “pair of adapter rings” in Claim 17 Lines 4-5.
The term “connecting an adapter ring…over each of the pair of attachment bosses” in Claim 19 Line 3 is further unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is further unclear how a single adapter ring connects to both attachment bosses. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the term will be interpreted “connecting one of each of the adapter rings over one of each of the pair of attachment bosses” for proper antecedent basis with Claim 17 Lines 4, 5, and for clarity with the remaining limitations in Claim 19.
Dependent claims are rejected at the least for depending on rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
FIRST REJECTION: As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Claim(s) 1-4, 7-12, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freestone et al (USPN 11844903), herein Freestone ‘903.
Regarding Claim 1, Freestone ‘903 teaches a method for replacing a first rear strap (330a) on a headgear assembly (310) (if a prior art, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily describe a device capable of performing the steps of the method or process, then the device claimed will be considered to be inherent by the prior art process or method. When the prior art process or method is the same as a process or method described in the specification for describing the claimed device, it can be assumed the process or method will inherently describe the claimed device capable of performing the different steps of the process or method. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02; as such, for structure for the method, see Fig. 4; Col. 1 Lines 18-20 "present disclosure relates to a headgear assembly that is customizable to fit a range of head sizes"; Col. 13 Lines 52-57 "headgear assembly 310 comprises…rear strap 330 …provided in a plurality of sizes (e.g., small 330a, medium 330b, and large 330c)"; Col. 13 Lines 58-60 "rear strap 330 have connector elements 322, 332 at each end that are configured to be joined to a pair of opposing hubs 350"), the method comprising:
removing the first rear strap from the headgear assembly (Col. 1 Lines 18-20 customizable indicates removing); and
attaching a replacement rear strap to the headgear assembly (Col. 1 Lines 18-20 customizable indicating attaching/replacing with 330b or 330c)
by engaging each of a pair of adapter rings to an attachment boss (see Fig. 4; Col. 14 Lines 12-15 "connector elements 322 and 332 are shown as push fit connectors that are received by corresponding receiving elements (not shown) within the...rear strap extensions 352, 354", wherein these elements are related to 330a, 330b, 330c ; although 352, 354 are not illustrated in Fig. 4, it is understood how they relate to Figs. 2B-3C, especially in light of Col. 11 Lines 26-34, Col. 12 Lines 37-39, Col. 13 Lines 27-49; wherein it is known in the art that push fit connectors are bosses engaging with apertures-- see extrinsic evidence Freestone et al 11253668, herein Freestone ‘668; see extrinsic evidence Merriam Webster Ring NPL and extrinsic evidence Merriam Webster Encircle NPL for how apertures are interpreted as rings, for apertures are arrangements that pass completely around; see extrinsic evidence Merriam Webster boss NPL and extrinsic evidence Merriam Webster protuberant NPL for how 322, 332 are interpreted as bosses, for being protuberant/thrusting out from an adjacent body surface).
Freestone ‘903 does not explicitly teach the pair of attachment bosses being of the headgear assembly,
the pair of adapter rings being of the replacement rear strap.
However, Freestone ‘903 teaches the opposite (see Fig. 4; hub 350 portion of the headgear assembly portion currently has the ring/apertures, while the replacement strap currently has the bosses/connector elements 322, 332).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Freestone ‘903 to be as recited as a mere reversal of parts is held to be an obvious modification, in reGazda 219 F.2d 449,104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) without unexpected results, for effective fastening.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein the replacement rear strap is made of stretchable fabric (Col. 12 Lines 55-60 "rear…straps…230…can be made from…thermoplastic elastomer…covered in a fabric casing…to provide added comfort the user", wherein it is known in the art that elastomers are stretchable; though directed to Figs. 2B-3C embodiment, it is understood that it applies also to Fig. 4 embodiment herein, especially in light of Col. 13 Lines 27-31 "further headgear assemblies disclosed herein can be the same as or similar to the headgear assembly 210 of Figs. 2A-3C or can have components or features that are the same as or similar to corresponding or similar components or features of the headgear assembly 210 of Figs. 2A-3C").
Regarding Claim 3, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein each of the pair of adapter rings comprises an adapter ring aperture (see rejection of Claim 1 wherein each ring has an aperture).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 3.
Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein each of the adapter ring apertures is sized and configured to engage an attachment boss (see rejection of Claim 1; Freestone ‘903 already teaches adapter ring apertures and attachment bosses engaging one another and therefore the apertures are sized and configured to engage as recited).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 4.
Freestone ‘903 Fig. 4 embodiment does not explicitly teach wherein each of the pair of attachment bosses is circle shaped.
Freestone ‘903 Figs. 29, 31 embodiment teaches wherein a boss is circle shaped (see Figs. 28-31; Col. 23 Lines 18-19 "Figs. 30 and 31 illustrate a headgear assembly 1210 that is similar to the headgear assembly 1210 of Figs. 28 and 29"; Col. 23 Lines 24-25 "rear strap 1230"; Col. 23 Lines 29-30 "illustrated hub 1260 includes a connector insert 1280 for ...strap...1230"; Col. 23 Lines 38-40 "strap...1230 ...can be connected to the connector insert 1280 after the selected spacer element 1250 is positioned on the hub 1260"; as such, the boss 1280 is circle shaped).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Freestone ‘903’s push-fit and aperture connector fastenings/shapes of Fig. 4 embodiment with the spacer/aperture and boss/connector fastening shapes of Fig. 31 as a simple substitution of one fastening/shape for another, especially as Freestone ‘903 recites such a combination in light of Col. 13 Lines 27-49, especially Lines 46-49 (examiner notes that only the hub/connector fastenings/shapes is being utilized, not the entirety of the fastening embodiment--See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981)).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 7.
Modified Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein each of the adapter ring apertures is circle shaped (see Fig. 31, wherein the ring aperture/spacer 1250 is circle shaped).
Regarding Claim 9, Freestone ‘903 teaches a method for replacing a rear strap (330a) (if a prior art, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily describe a device capable of performing the steps of the method or process, then the device claimed will be considered to be inherent by the prior art process or method. When the prior art process or method is the same as a process or method described in the specification for describing the claimed device, it can be assumed the process or method will inherently describe the claimed device capable of performing the different steps of the process or method. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02; as such, for structure for the method, see Fig. 4; Col. 1 Lines 18-20 "present disclosure relates to a headgear assembly that is customizable to fit a range of head sizes"; Col. 13 Lines 52-57 "headgear assembly 310 comprises…rear strap 330 …provided in a plurality of sizes (e.g., small 330a, medium 330b, and large 330c)"; Col. 13 Lines 58-60 "rear strap 330 have connector elements 322, 332 at each end that are configured to be joined to a pair of opposing hubs 350")
of a headgear assembly (310) comprising a top strap (320), a front strap (340), a pair of hubs (350) (see Fig. 4; Col. 13 Lines 52-60 "headgear assembly 310 comprises a top strap 320…a rear strap 330 ..provided in a plurality of sizes (e.g., small 330a, medium 330b and large 330c) and a pair of front strap 340...rear strap 330 have connector elements 322, 332 at each end that are configured to be joined to a pair of opposing hubs 350 (only one shown)”)
removing the rear strap from a headgear assembly (Col. 1 Lines 18-20 wherein customizable indicates removing); and
attaching the rear replacement strap (330b or 330c) to the headgear assembly (Col. 1 Lines 18-20 wherein customizable indicates attaching/replacing 330b or 330c; see also Fig. 4 and Col. 13 Lines 58-60 for replacement strap to headgear assembly),
engaging each of a pair of adapter rings to an attachment boss (see Fig. 4; Col. 14 Lines 12-15 "connector elements 322 and 332 are shown as push fit connectors that are received by corresponding receiving elements (not shown) within the...rear strap extensions 352, 354", wherein these elements are related to 330a, 330b, 330c ; although 352, 354 are not illustrated in Fig. 4, it is understood how they relate to Figs. 2B-3C, especially in light of Col. 11 Lines 26-34, Col. 12 Lines 37-39, Col. 13 Lines 27-49; wherein it is known in the art that push fit connectors are bosses engaging with apertures-- see extrinsic evidence Freestone et al 11253668, herein Freestone ‘668; see extrinsic evidence Merriam Webster Ring NPL and extrinsic evidence Merriam Webster Encircle NPL for how apertures are interpreted as rings, for apertures are arrangements that pass completely around; see extrinsic evidence Merriam Webster boss NPL and extrinsic evidence Merriam Webster protuberant NPL for how 322, 332 are interpreted as bosses, for being protuberant/thrusting out from an adjacent body surface).
Freestone ‘903 does not explicitly teach the pair of attachment bosses being of the headgear assembly,
the pair of adapter rings being of the rear replacement strap.
However, Freestone ‘903 teaches the opposite (see Fig. 4; hub 350 portion of the headgear assembly portion currently has the ring/apertures, while the replacement strap currently has the bosses/connector elements 322, 332).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Freestone ‘903 to be as recited as a mere reversal of parts is held to be an obvious modification, in reGazda 219 F.2d 449,104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) without unexpected results, for effective fastening.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 9.
Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein the replacement strap comprises stretchable fabric (Col. 12 Lines 55-60 "rear…straps…230…can be made from…thermoplastic elastomer…covered in a fabric casing…to provide added comfort the user", wherein it is known in the art that elastomers are stretchable; though directed to Figs. 2B-3C embodiment, it is understood that it applies also to Fig. 4 embodiment herein, especially in light of Col. 13 Lines 27-31 "further headgear assemblies disclosed herein can be the same as or similar to the headgear assembly 210 of Figs. 2A-3C or can have components or features that are the same as or similar to corresponding or similar components or features of the headgear assembly 210 of Figs. 2A-3C").
Regarding Claim 11, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 9.
Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein each of the pair of adapter rings comprises an adapter ring aperture (see rejection of Claim 9 wherein each ring has an aperture).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein each of the adapter ring apertures is sized and configured to be placed over a corresponding one of the pair of attachment bosses (see rejection of Claim 9; Freestone ‘903 already teaches adapter ring apertures and attachment bosses engaging one another and therefore the apertures are sized and configured to engage as recited).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
Freestone ‘903 Fig. 4 embodiment does not explicitly teach wherein each of the pair of attachment bosses is circle shaped.
Freestone ‘903 Figs. 29, 31 embodiment teaches wherein a boss is circle shaped (see Figs. 28-31; Col. 23 Lines 18-19 "Figs. 30 and 31 illustrate a headgear assembly 1210 that is similar to the headgear assembly 1210 of Figs. 28 and 29"; Col. 23 Lines 24-25 "rear strap 1230"; Col. 23 Lines 29-30 "illustrated hub 1260 includes a connector insert 1280 for ...strap...1230"; Col. 23 Lines 38-40 "strap...1230 ...can be connected to the connector insert 1280 after the selected spacer element 1250 is positioned on the hub 1260"; as such, the boss 1280 is circle shaped).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Freestone ‘903’s push-fit and aperture connector fastenings/shapes of Fig. 4 embodiment with the spacer/aperture and boss/connector fastening shapes of Fig. 31 as a simple substitution of one fastening/shape for another, especially as Freestone ‘903 recites such a combination in light of Col. 13 Lines 27-49, especially Lines 46-49 (examiner notes that only the hub/connector fastenings/shapes is being utilized, not the entirety of the fastening embodiment--See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981)).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 15.
Modified Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein each of the adapter ring apertures is circle shaped (see Fig. 31, wherein the ring aperture/spacer 1250 is circle shaped).
SECOND REJECTION: As best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections-- Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freestone et al (USPN 11844903), herein Freestone ‘903, in view of Moon (USPN 10702024).
Regarding Claim 17, Freestone ‘903 teaches a method for modifying a headgear assembly (310) comprising a pair of hubs (350) and a rear strap (330a) (if a prior art, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily describe a device capable of performing the steps of the method or process, then the device claimed will be considered to be inherent by the prior art process or method. When the prior art process or method is the same as a process or method described in the specification for describing the claimed device, it can be assumed the process or method will inherently describe the claimed device capable of performing the different steps of the process or method. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02; as such, for structure for the method, see Fig. 4; Col. 1 Lines 18-20 "present disclosure relates to a headgear assembly that is customizable to fit a range of head sizes", wherein customizable indicates modifying; Col. 13 Lines 52-57 "headgear assembly 310 comprises…rear strap 330 …provided in a plurality of sizes (e.g., small 330a, medium 330b, and large 330c)"; Col. 13 Lines 58-60 "rear strap 330 have connector elements 322, 332 at each end that are configured to be joined to a pair of opposing hubs 350"), the method comprising:
removing the headgear assembly (Col. 1 Lines 18-20 customizable indicates removing the rear strap of the headgear assembly),
modifying the headgear assembly by connecting a replacement rear strap (330b or 330c) to the headgear assembly (see Fig. 4; Col. 13 Lines 58-60 wherein customizable indicates modifying/connecting/replacing with 330b or 330c),
engagement of each of a pair of adapter rings with a hub (see Fig. 4; Col. 14 Lines 12-15 "connector elements 322 and 332 are shown as push fit connectors that are received by corresponding receiving elements (not shown) within the...rear strap extensions 352, 354", wherein these elements are related to 330a, 330b, 330c ; although 352, 354 are not illustrated in Fig. 4, it is understood how they relate to Figs. 2B-3C, especially in light of Col. 11 Lines 26-34, Col. 12 Lines 37-39, Col. 13 Lines 27-49; wherein it is known in the art that push fit connectors are bosses engaging with apertures-- see extrinsic evidence Freestone et al 11253668, herein Freestone ‘668; see extrinsic evidence Merriam Webster Ring NPL and extrinsic evidence Merriam Webster Encircle NPL for how apertures are interpreted as rings, for apertures are arrangements that pass completely around; see extrinsic evidence Merriam Webster boss NPL and extrinsic evidence Merriam Webster protuberant NPL for how 322, 332 are interpreted as bosses, for being protuberant/thrusting out from an adjacent body surface; wherein the bosses are at each side’s hub).
Freestone ‘903 does not explicitly teach the pair of hubs being of the headgear assembly,
the pair of adapter rings being of the replacement rear strap.
However, Freestone ‘903 teaches the opposite (see Fig. 4; hub 350 portion of the headgear assembly portion currently has the ring/apertures, while the replacement strap currently has the hubs at bosses/connector elements 322, 332).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Freestone ‘903 to be as recited as a mere reversal of parts is held to be an obvious modification, in reGazda 219 F.2d 449,104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) without unexpected results, for effective fastening.
Freestone ‘903 does not explicitly teach a helmet, and therefore
modifying a helmet,
removing the headgear assembly from the helmet,
connecting the modified headgear assembly to the helmet.
Moon teaches a helmet (30) with a headgear assembly (1) (see Figs. 1, 6; Col. 3 Lines 46-49 "the buckle 100 may be used for not only connecting to the respirator mask 1 in which the harness 10 is used, but connecting the mask body 20 to a helmet 30, which is shown in FIG. 6").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Freestone’s headgear assembly with the helmet of Moon, as both are in the same art of endeavor as headgear assemblies with respiratory devices, in order to protect the user (Col. 9 Lines 56-58).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Freestone ‘903 teaches modifying a helmet (inasmuch as the rear strap/replacement rear straps are of the headgear assembly of Freestone ‘903 are of a helmet of Moon, modifying the headgear assembly modifies the helmet),
removing the headgear assembly from the helmet (removing the straps of the headgear assembly removes a portion of the headgear assembly from the helmet)
connecting the modified headgear assembly to the helmet (connecting a replacement rear strap is to connect modified headgear assembly to the helmet).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 17.
Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein the replacement rear strap comprises stretchable fabric (Col. 12 Lines 55-60 "rear…straps…230…can be made from…thermoplastic elastomer…covered in a fabric casing…to provide added comfort the user", wherein it is known in the art that elastomers are stretchable; though directed to Figs. 2B-3C embodiment, it is understood that it applies also to Fig. 4 embodiment herein, especially in light of Col. 13 Lines 27-31 "further headgear assemblies disclosed herein can be the same as or similar to the headgear assembly 210 of Figs. 2A-3C or can have components or features that are the same as or similar to corresponding or similar components or features of the headgear assembly 210 of Figs. 2A-3C").
Regarding Claim 19, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 17.
Modified Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein the headgear assembly further comprises a pair of attachment bosses each extending from a corresponding one of the pair of hubs (see rejection of Claim 17, wherein the bosses are at each pair of hubs, the hubs being at the headgear assembly as modified),
wherein the step of modifying the headgear assembly further comprises connecting an adapter ring of the replacement rear strap over each of the pair of attachment bosses (see rejection of Claim 17 wherein the adapter rings are of the replacement rear straps as modified, and how the attachment bosses are of the headgear assembly as modified, and how adapter rings and attachment bosses connect to one another).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 19.
Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein the pair of attachment bosses and pair of adapter rings are the same shape (Freestone ‘903 teaches wherein the bosses and rings connect to one another, and therefore have a same shape at least at some portion in order for the connection to occur).
Examiner Notes
Claim(s) 5, 6, 13, 14, as best understood from the disclosure, is/are free of U.S.C. 102/103 rejections, but is/are currently questioned under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Parks (USPN 6948813) directed to circle shaped bosses/apertures; Seo (US Publication 2014/0259252) directed to D-shaped bosses/apertures; Xiong et al (USPN 9737107), Veliss et al (USPN 10166357) directed to headgear assembly with helmet; Dureus (US Publication 2023/0285706) directed to CPAP therapies utilized with a helmet; Esayian et al (USPN 12256797), Walls et al (USPN 11786688) directed to replaceable straps; Eves et al (USPN 9427545) directed to push-fit connections; Avner et al (WO 2019/135209), Wilson (US Publication 2013/0047312), Maloney (USPN 6694530) directed to polycarbonate strap clip; Schultz et al (US Publication 2015/0040286), Krauter (DE 102004005757) directed to strap having non-slip silicone strip; Cornell (US Publication 2012/0054936) directed to strap having additional reinforcing material such as leather or rubber; Flood (USPN 1885426) directed to cloth sweatband on front strap; Matthews et al (USPN 8990963), Bowers (USPN 2487848), Bowers (USPN 2469810) directed to sweatband on front strap.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Grace Huang whose telephone number is (571)270-5969. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-5:30pm EST.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 571-272-4888. 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.
/GRACE HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732