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
The amendment filed 4/27/26 has been entered. Claims 1-48 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the (Specification, Drawings, and Claims) have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 1/28/26.
Lack of Power of Attorney
It appears applicant has legal representation but a valid power of attorney has not been filed in the present application. Providing representative information in an Application Data Sheet (ADS) does not constitute a power of attorney. See 37 CFR 1.76(b)(4) and MPEP § 408. For information on appointing a power of attorney, see MPEP § 402.02 et seq. Filing a valid power of attorney is recommended in order to prevent inadvertent delays in prosecution.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim(s) 40-43, 45-48 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claim(s) 1-39, 44, drawn to method of use of replacing via non-molding, classified in A42B 3/145.
II. Claim(s) 40-43, 45-48, drawn to method of making of replacing via molding, classified in B28B 21/38.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions Group I and Group II are directed to related processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed, Group I does not require molding and could utilize 3-D printing for the ring as disclosed in the original specification [0026] while Group II requires molding for the ring. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim(s) 40-43, 45-48 is/are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Specification
The amendment filed 4/27/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The amendment to [0012] is mostly all new matter. Pertaining to the first amended sentence of the section beginning with “By way of example”-- despite applicant remarks, the original disclosure does not provide support; see MPEP 2163, such as MPEP 2163(I)(A); merely because the genus was disclosed originally does not provide support for species; in other words, merely disclosing “or other shapes” does not provide support for the plethora of shapes now recited
The amendment to [0012] is furthermore all new matter. Pertaining to the second amended sentence of the section beginning with “By way of example”-- despite applicant remarks, the original disclosure does not provide support for the term “inhibiting rotational movement” and therefore none of the associated recitations; the closest related recitation in the original disclosure is “ring apertures is sized and configured to be placed over a corresponding one of the…bosses”, which does not rise to the level of support necessary
The amendment to [0012] is furthermore all new matter. Pertaining to the first part of the third amended sentence of the section beginning with “By way of example”-- despite applicant remarks, the original disclosure does not provide support for the term “rings is integrally formed by an injection molding process”; the closest related recitation in the original disclosure is [0026] “3-D printing process is used to create each adapter ring 104”, which does not rise to the level of injection molding; furthermore, the only instance of molding, let alone injection molding, in the original disclosure is in [0009] “front strap 208, standard rear strap 210 and top strap 212 are manufactured from a thermoplastic through an injection molding process” which does not pertain to rings
The amendment to [0012] is furthermore all new matter. Pertaining to the second part of the third amended sentence of the section beginning with “By way of example”-- despite applicant remarks, the original disclosure does not provide support for the term “bosses is integrally molded with a corresponding one of a pair of hubs”; the only instance of molding, let alone injection molding, in the original disclosure is in [0009] “front strap 208, standard rear strap 210 and top strap 212 are manufactured from a thermoplastic through an injection molding process” which does not pertain to bosses
The amendment to [0026] is all new matter except for “each adapter ring 104 may be…polycarbonate” which is already recited in [0026]. Pertaining to the first and second amended sentence—similarly as aforementioned for [0012] first part of the third amended sentence, there is no support for injection molding rings;
The amendment to [0026] is furthermore mostly all new matter. Pertaining to the second amended sentence— despite applicant remarks, the original disclosure does not provide support for any of the listed materials for the ring, except for polycarbonate (original [0026]). Similarly as aforementioned for [0012] first sentence— a mere “genus” recitation of [0026] “any material,” let alone [0026] “any material suitable for a 3-D printer” does not provide support for the “species” recitations of the listed materials
The amendment to [0026] is furthermore mostly all new matter. Pertaining to the third amended sentence—despite applicant remarks the original disclosure does not provide support for injection-molded ring as aforementioned
The amendment to [0026] is furthermore mostly all new matter. Pertaining to the fourth amended sentence—despite applicant remarks, the original disclosure does not provide support for any recitations pertaining to the order or timing in which components are assembled; the closest recitation is in [0013] but is merely referring to the order of the method of use, in replacing the rear strap, and is not directed to the ring manufactured in an order before assembly to the replacement strap, and timing-wise is only placed over the boss at the point of use
The amendment to [0027] is all new matter. Pertaining to the first amended sentence—similarly as indicated above for [0012] first sentence to the ring shape, there is no support for the adapter ring aperture having the shapes listed
The amendment to [0027] is furthermore all new matter. Pertaining to the second amended sentence—similarly as indicated above for [0012] second sentence to rotational movement, there is no support for inhibiting rotational movement
The amendment to [0027] is furthermore all new matter. Pertaining to the third amended sentence—similarly as indicated above, there is no support for the bosses being integrally molded with the hubs, let alone single-shot injection molded; the only instance of molding, let alone injection molding, in the original disclosure is in [0009] “front strap 208, standard rear strap 210 and top strap 212 are manufactured from a thermoplastic through an injection molding process” which does not pertain to bosses
The amendment to [0027] is furthermore all new matter. Further pertaining to the third amended sentence—similarly as indicated above, there is no support for the bosses being integrally molded with the hubs into a unitary polymeric body; the only polymer recited in the original disclosure (polycarbonate) is pertaining to the ring ([0026]) and the strap clip 112 ([0030]), which do not pertain to the bosses
The amendment to [0027] is furthermore all new matter. Pertaining to the fourth amended sentence—similarly as indicated above for [0026] fourth sentence, despite applicant remarks, the original disclosure does not provide support for any recitations pertaining to the order or timing in which components are assembled; the closest recitation is in [0013] but is merely referring to the order of the method of use, in replacing the rear strap, and is not directed to the bosses manufactured in an order before the hubs to be of a timing subsequently joined to the hubs
The amendment to [0027] is furthermore all new matter. Further pertaining to the fourth amended sentence—despite applicant remarks, the original disclosure does not provide support for any recitations for the bosses and hubs to be joined via adhesive, ultrasonic welding, threaded engagement, or press-fit engagement; the closest recitation is [0007], [0008] which indicates there is a threaded bolt 224, but this is pertaining to fastener 222, not bosses 230 or hubs 214; furthermore, [0008] indicates the “bosses 230 extend outward from the hubs 214” but does not rise to the level of support for specific joining methods
The amendment to [0033] contains new matter. Pertaining to the first sentence of the amended section—similarly as aforementioned, there is no support for the ring manufactured as an injection-molded body;
The amendment to [0033] further contains new matter. Pertaining to the first part of the third sentence of the amended section—similarly as aforementioned, there is no support for the ring manufactured as an injection-molded body;
The amendment to [0033] further contains new matter. Pertaining to the second part of the third sentence of the amended section—similarly as aforementioned, there is no support for the ring having an integrally molded feature; [0026] only ever recites that the ring may be 3-D printed, and does not rise to the level of support for the amendment; furthermore, the only recitation of molding is in [0009] pertaining to straps, and does not include the ring
The amendment to [0033] further contains new matter. Pertaining to the second part of the third sentence of the amended section—there is no support in the original disclosure to a spacing function for a ring, let alone for a boss
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The disclosure is further objected to for the following:
[0033] “in paragraph [0026]” should be deleted as, if the application were to go to patent, the numeral [0026] would not exist
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 17, 27, 28, 33-35 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 amendment annotations are incorrect and Lines 5-8 should have been “connecting a replacement rear strap to the headgear assembly, wherein each of a pair of adapter rings of the replacement rear strap is engaged with a respective one of the pair of hubs
Claim 27 Line 1 delete “attaching” and substitute –the attaching-- for proper antecedent basis with Claim 1 Line 4
Claim 28 Line 9 before “attaching” add –the—for proper antecedent basis with Claim 28 Line 6
Claim 33 Line 10 delete “connecting” and substitute –the connecting of the replacement rear strap assembly-- for proper antecedent basis with Claim 33 Line 7 and clarity with Claim 33 Line 12
Claim 34 Line 1 delete “removing” and substitute –the removing of—for proper antecedent basis with Claim 33 Line 5
Claim 35 Line 1 delete “connecting” and substitute –the connecting of—for proper antecedent basis with Claim 33 Line 12
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 21-24, 30, 37, 39, 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 pertaining to ring apertures being non-circular is considered new matter for reasons similarly aforementioned in the specification objections for new matter. Furthermore, see MPEP 2173.05(i) “The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion” and therefore the disclosure of being D-shaped cannot provide support for such a negative limitation, especially as the shape is at least partially circular.
Claim 21 pertaining to inhibiting relative rotational movement is considered new matter for reasons similarly aforementioned in the specification objections for new matter.
Claim 22 pertaining to bosses/ring apertures being square shaped is considered new matter for reasons similarly aforementioned in the specification objections for new matter.
Claim 23 pertaining to bosses/ring apertures being hexagonal is considered new matter for reasons similarly aforementioned in the specification objections for new matter.
Claim 24 pertaining to bosses/ring apertures being oval or elliptical is considered new matter for reasons similarly aforementioned in the specification objections for new matter.
Claim 30 pertaining to bosses/ring apertures being non-circular is considered new matter for reasons similarly aforementioned in the specification objections for new matter. Furthermore, see MPEP 2173.05(i) “The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion” and therefore the disclosure of being D-shaped cannot provide support for such a negative limitation, especially as the shape is at least partially circular.
Claim 37 pertaining to non-circular geometry and inhibiting relative rotational movement is considered new matter for reasons similarly aforementioned in the specification objections for new matter and as similarly aforementioned herein.
Claim 39 pertaining to non-circular geometry and inhibiting relative rotational movement is considered new matter for reasons similarly aforementioned in the specification objections for new matter and as similarly aforementioned herein.
Claim 44 pertaining to inhibiting relative rotational movement is considered new matter for reasons similarly aforementioned in the specification objections for new matter and as similarly aforementioned herein.
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) 21, 30, 33-37, 39, 44 is/are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
The term “non-circular” in Claim 21 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the 112(a) rejections and the original disclosure of D-shaped which is at least partially circular, the metes and bounds of the term is unclear. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, any shape will be considered as meeting the recitation.
The term “inhibit relative rotational movement” in Claim 21 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Especially in light of the 112(a) rejections, the metes and bounds of the term is unclear. For the purposes of applying art and providing rejections, the existence of a boss and ring capable of engaging will be considered as meeting the recitation.
The term “non-circular” in Claim 30 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly aforementioned and similarly interpreted.
The term “standard” in claim 33 Line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “standard” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner recommends amending the term to “first.”
The term “standard” in Claim 33 Line 5 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 33 Line 3.
The term “standard” in Claim 34 Line 1 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 33 Line 3.
The term “standard” in Claim 34 Line 2 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly indicated for Claim 33 Line 3.
The term “non-circular” in Claim 37 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly aforementioned and similarly interpreted.
The term “inhibit relative rotational movement” in Claim 37 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly aforementioned and similarly interpreted.
The term “non-circular” in Claim 39 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly aforementioned and similarly interpreted.
The term “inhibit relative rotational movement” in Claim 39 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly aforementioned and similarly interpreted.
The term “inhibit relative rotational movement” in Claim 44 is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite for reasons similarly aforementioned and similarly interpreted.
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: Claim(s) 1-4, 7-11, 21-24 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 with a respective one of the pair of attachment bosses (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 the respective one of the pair of attachment bosses (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 the headgear assembly (Col. 1 Lines 18-20 wherein customizable indicates removing); and
attaching a rear replacement strap (330b or 330c) (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 the adapter rings with a respective one of the pair of attachment bosses (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 21, 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 has a non-circular geometry configured to inhibit relative rotational movement between the adapter ring and the corresponding attachment boss when assembled (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—the existence of the ring apertures and bosses meet the recitation of non-circular which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of inhibiting relative rotational movement as recited).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 4.
Modified Freestone ‘903 does not explicitly teach wherein each of the pair of attachment bosses is square shaped and each of the adapter ring apertures is square shaped.
However, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
As such, especially absent a showing of criticality with respect to the square shape ([0012]), 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 bosses and ring apertures to be square shaped.
Regarding Claim 23, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 4.
Modified Freestone ‘903 does not explicitly teach wherein each of the pair of attachment bosses is hexagonal and each of the adapter ring apertures is hexagonal.
However, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
As such, especially absent a showing of criticality with respect to the hexagonal shape ([0012]), 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 bosses and ring apertures to be hexagonal.
Regarding Claim 24, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 4.
Modified Freestone ‘903 does not explicitly teach wherein each of the pair of attachment bosses is oval or elliptical and each of the adapter ring apertures is oval or elliptical.
However, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
As such, especially absent a showing of criticality with respect to the oval or elliptical shape ([0012]), 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 bosses and ring apertures to be oval or elliptical.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 12-16, 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freestone et al (USPN 11844903), herein Freestone ‘903, as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Berthon-Jones et al (USPN 10307554), herein Berthon.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Freestone teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 4.
Freestone ‘903 does not explicitly teach wherein each of the pair of attachment bosses is D-shaped.
Berthon teaches wherein an attachment boss (662) is D-shaped (see Fig. 53I--Col. 25 Lines 65-67 "second frame member 662 includes a protrusion 667 structured to be inserted through the main opening [664] of the first frame member 661").
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 fasteners to be the shapes as taught by Berthon as a simple substitution of one known fastener shape for another to be effective in mask applications and/or for aesthetic design choice.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 5.
Modified Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein each of the adapter ring apertures is D-shaped (see Berthon Fig. 53I; Col. 25 Lines 65-67, wherein adapter ring is 661 with D-shaped aperture 664).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 11.
Freestone ‘903 does not explicitly teach wherein each of the apertures is sized and configured to be placed correspondingly over the respective one of the pair of attachment bosses.
Berthon teaches wherein an aperture is sized and configured to be placed correspondingly over an attachment boss (662) (see Fig. 53I--Col. 25 Lines 65-67 "second frame member 662 includes a protrusion 667 structured to be inserted through the main opening [664] of the first frame member 661").
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 fasteners to be the shapes as taught by Berthon as a simple substitution of one known fastener shape for another to be effective in mask applications and/or for aesthetic design choice.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
Modified Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein each of the pair of attachment bosses is D-shaped (see Berthon Fig. 53I wherein the boss 662 is D-shaped).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 13.
Modified Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein each of the adapter ring apertures is D-shaped (see Berthon Fig. 53I wherein the adapter ring 661 aperture 664 is D-shaped).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
Modified Freestone ‘903 does not explicitly teach wherein each of the pair of attachment bosses is circle shaped.
However, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
As such, especially absent a showing of criticality with respect to the circle shape ([0012]), 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 bosses and ring apertures, as shaped by Berthon, to be circle shaped.
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 rejection of Claim 15).
Regarding Claim 39, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 12.
Modified Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein each of the adapter ring apertures has a non-circular geometry configured to inhibit relative rotational movement between the adapter ring and the corresponding attachment boss when assembled (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—the existence of the ring apertures and bosses meet the recitation of non-circular which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of inhibiting relative rotational movement as recited; nevertheless, see Berthon Fig. 53I for adapter ring 661 with aperture 664; as such, modified Freestone ‘903 teaches non-circular geometry which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of inhibiting relative rotational movement as recited).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freestone et al (USPN 11844903), herein Freestone ‘903, as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Parks (USPN 6948813).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Freestone ‘903 does not explicitly teach wherein each of the pair of adapter rings further comprises a strap slit through which the replacement rear strap is threaded.
Parks teaches wherein an adapter ring further comprises a strap slit through which the rear strap is threaded (see 7A, 7B; Col. 5 Lines 44-47 "strap slot 140 in coupler 105 retains or attaches the strap 120 to the coupler 105, which when inserted and locked into the registration openings 90, achieving attachment of the strap 120 to the...assembly"; Col. 2 Line 65-Col. 3 Line 11 "coupler 105 includes a protruding element 110 and a retention element that engages with registration openings 90. Examples of couplers include, but are not limited to, twist lock cams 97...bolts, rods, dowels, lugs, pins, rivets, and screws...retention elements are well known...include...collars, annular members for frictional and/or snapping engagement with protrusion elements, and threaded openings").
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 strap with protruding element to be the protruding element with strap slit separate from strap as taught by Parks as a simple substitution of one strap/protruding element for another for aesthetic design choice, especially as it is well known for elements to be integral or separate, without unexpected results or criticality, especially as both Freestone ‘903 and Parks are protruding/retention element systems for a rear strap, and Parks teaches that it is known to be interchangeable with a variety of systems.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freestone et al (USPN 11844903), herein Freestone ‘903, as applied to the FIRST REJECTION above, further in view of Parks (USPN 6948813) and Maloney (USPN 6694530).
Regarding Claim 26, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 1.
Freestone ‘903 does not explicitly teach wherein each of the pair of adapter rings is a separate component from the replacement rear strap and from the pair of attachment bosses.
Parks teaches an adapter ring is a separate component from the rear strap and from the attachment boss (see 7A, 7B; Col. 5 Lines 44-47 "strap slot 140 in coupler 105 retains or attaches the strap 120 to the coupler 105, which when inserted and locked into the registration openings 90, achieving attachment of the strap 120 to the...assembly"; Col. 2 Line 65-Col. 3 Line 11 "coupler 105 includes a protruding element 110 and a retention element that engages with registration openings 90. Examples of couplers include, but are not limited to, twist lock cams 97...bolts, rods, dowels, lugs, pins, rivets, and screws...retention elements are well known...include...collars, annular members for frictional and/or snapping engagement with protrusion elements, and threaded openings").
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 strap with protruding element to be the protruding element with strap slit separate from strap as taught by Parks as a simple substitution of one strap/protruding element for another for aesthetic design choice, especially as it is well known for elements to be integral or separate, without unexpected results or criticality, especially as both Freestone ‘903 and Parks are protruding/retention element systems for a rear strap, and Parks teaches that it is known to be interchangeable with a variety of systems.
Modified Freestone ‘903 does not explicitly teach and each ring is manufactured from polycarbonate.
However, Freestone ‘903’s ring is a strap retainer as provided by Parks.
Maloney teaches a strap retainer ring is manufactured from polycarbonate (Col. 4 Lines 3-4 "strap guide 120 is polycarbonate"; title "goggle strap…for motorcycle type helmet").
As such, modified Freestone ‘903 already teaches all of the elements of the instant invention as discussed in detail above except providing the ring being polycarbonate. Although modified Freestone ‘903 does not directly teach this limitation, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the ring by polycarbonate. Such modification would be considered a mere choice of a commonly used material, in the apparel art, to make a strap retainer/ring polycarbonate on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In other words, the use of polycarbonate would have been an "obvious to try" approach because the use of such a well-known material for a strap retainer/ring is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742,82, USPQ2d 1382, 1396 (2007), as shown in Maloney.
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 ring material, as provided by Parks, to be polycarbonate as taught in Maloney as a known strap retainer material in headwear.
SECOND REJECTION: 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 removing the rear strap from the headgear assembly (see Fig. 4; Col. 13 Lines 58-60 wherein customizing indicates modifying by removing)
and 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),
wherein each of a pair of adapter rings of the replacement rear strap is engaged with a respective one of the pair of hubs (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 one each of the adapter rings of the replacement rear strap over one of each of the 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, with the ring enveloping/connecting over a boss).
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).
THIRD REJECTION: Claim(s) 28, 30, 32, 38, 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freestone et al (USPN 11844903), herein Freestone ‘903, in view of Berthon-Jones et al (USPN 10307554), herein Berthon.
Regarding Claim 28, 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 headgear assembly comprising a pair of hubs (350),
a pair of attachment bosses (322, 332) each extending from a respective one of the pair of hubs (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),
and the first rear strap extending between the pair of hubs (see Fig. 4);
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)
a pair of adapter rings each having an adapter ring aperture (see aforementioned with the rejection of bosses; Col. 11 Lines 26-34; Col. 12 Lines 37-39; Col. 13 Lines 27-49; the receiving elements that correspond to bosses being the rings/apertures)
and a replacement strap extending between the pair of adapter rings (see Fig. 4; Col. 1 Lines 18-20).
Freestone ‘903 does not explicitly the pair of attachment bosses being of the headgear assembly,
the pair of attachment bosses each extending from a respective one of the pair of hubs
the pair of adapter rings being of the replacement rear strap assembly.
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.
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 the pair of attachment bosses each extending from a respective one of the pair of hubs,
and a replacement strap extending between the pair of adapter rings.
Freestone ‘903 also does not explicitly teach wherein attaching comprises placing each adapter ring aperture over a respective one of the pair of attachment bosses such that each adapter ring aperture corresponds to an outer perimeter of the respective attachment boss.
Berthon teaches attaching comprises placing an adapter ring aperture (664) over an attachment boss (662) such that the adapter ring aperture corresponds to an outer perimeter of the respective attachment boss (see Fig. 53I; Col. 25 Lines 65-67 "second frame member 662 includes a protrusion 667 structured to be inserted through the main opening [664] of the first frame member 661", wherein 661 is adapter ring).
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 fasteners to be the shapes as taught by Berthon as a simple substitution of one known fastener shape for another to be effective in mask applications and/or for aesthetic design choice.
Regarding Claim 30, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 28.
Modified Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein each of the adapter ring apertures and each of the pair of attachment bosses has a non-circular geometry (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—the existence of the ring apertures and bosses meet the recitation of non-circular which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of inhibiting relative rotational movement as recited; nevertheless, see Berthon Fig. 53I for adapter ring 661 with aperture 664; as such, modified Freestone ‘903 teaches non-circular geometry which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of inhibiting relative rotational movement as recited).
Regarding Claim 32, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 28.
Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein the replacement strap is manufactured from an elastic fabric material that stretches in one or more directions (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 elastic and stretch in one or more directions; 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 38, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 28.
Modified Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein each of the pair of attachment bosses and each of the adapter ring apertures is D-shaped (see Berthon Fig. 53I, wherein the boss 662 and ring 661 with aperture 664 are D-shaped).
Regarding Claim 44, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 28.
Modified Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein each of the pair of adapter rings has a geometry that mechanically interlocks with the respective attachment boss to inhibit relative rotational movement between the adapter ring and the attachment boss when the headgear assembly is worn (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--the existence of the ring apertures and bosses meet the recitation of geometry which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of inhibiting relative rotational movement as recited; nevertheless, see Berthon Fig. 53I for adapter ring 661 with aperture 664; as such, modified Freestone ‘903 teaches geometry which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of inhibiting relative rotational movement as recited).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freestone et al (USPN 11844903), herein Freestone ‘903, in view of Berthon-Jones et al (USPN 10307554), herein Berthon, as applied to the THIRD REJECTION above, further in view of Parks (USPN 6948813).
Regarding Claim 29, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 28.
Freestone ‘903 does not explicitly teach wherein each of the pair of adapter rings further comprises a strap slit,
and wherein the replacement strap is threaded through the strap slit of each of the pair of adapter rings.
Parks teaches an adapter ring comprises a strap slit (see 7A, 7B; Col. 5 Lines 44-47 "strap slot 140 in coupler 105 retains or attaches the strap 120 to the coupler 105, which when inserted and locked into the registration openings 90, achieving attachment of the strap 120 to the...assembly"; Col. 2 Line 65-Col. 3 Line 11 "coupler 105 includes a protruding element 110 and a retention element that engages with registration openings 90. Examples of couplers include, but are not limited to, twist lock cams 97...bolts, rods, dowels, lugs, pins, rivets, and screws...retention elements are well known...include...collars, annular members for frictional and/or snapping engagement with protrusion elements, and threaded openings"),
and wherein the strap is threaded through the strap slit of the adapter ring (see aforementioned).
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 strap with protruding element to be the protruding element with strap slit separate from strap as taught by Parks as a simple substitution of one strap/protruding element for another for aesthetic design choice, especially as it is well known for elements to be integral or separate, without unexpected results or criticality, especially as both Freestone ‘903 and Parks are protruding/retention element systems for a rear strap, and Parks teaches that it is known to be interchangeable with a variety of systems.
FOURTH REJECTION: Claim(s) 33, 34, 36, 37 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) and Berthon-Jones et al (USPN 10307554), herein Berthon.
Regarding Claim 33, Freestone ‘903 teaches a method for modifying a headgear assembly (310), the headgear assembly comprising pair of hubs (350) and a standard 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:
a pair of attachment bosses (322, 332) (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),
removing the headgear assembly (Col. 1 Lines 18-20 customizable indicates removing the rear strap of the headgear assembly),
removing the standard rear strap from the headgear assembly to provide a modified the headgear assembly (see Fig. 4; Col. 13 Lines 58-60 wherein customizing indicates modifying by removing)
connecting a replacement rear strap (330b or 330c) to the modified headgear assembly (see Fig. 4; Col. 13 Lines 58-60 wherein customizable indicates modifying/connecting/replacing with 330b or 330c),
a pair of adapter rings each having an adapter ring aperture (see aforementioned with the rejection of bosses; Col. 11 Lines 26-34; Col. 12 Lines 37-39; Col. 13 Lines 27-49; the receiving elements that correspond to bosses being the rings/apertures),
and a replacement strap extending between the pair of adapter rings (see Fig. 4).
Freestone ‘903 does not explicitly the pair of attachment bosses being of the headgear assembly,
the pair of attachment bosses each extending from a respective one of the pair of hubs
the pair of adapter rings being of the replacement rear strap assembly.
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.
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 the pair of attachment bosses each extending from a respective one of the pair of hubs,
and a replacement strap extending between the pair of adapter rings.
Freestone ‘903 also does not explicitly teach a helmet, and therefore
modifying a helmet,
removing the headgear assembly from the helmet,
connecting the modified headgear assembly and the replacement rear strap 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 and the replacement rear strap assembly to the helmet (connecting a replacement rear strap is to connect modified headgear assembly to the helmet).
Freestone ‘903 also does not explicitly teach wherein connecting comprises placing each adapter ring aperture over a respective one of the pair of attachment bosses.
Berthon teaches connecting comprises placing an adapter ring (661) aperture (664) over an attachment boss (662) (see Fig. 53I--Col. 25 Lines 65-67 "second frame member 662 includes a protrusion 667 structured to be inserted through the main opening [664] of the first frame member 661").
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 fasteners to be the shapes as taught by Berthon as a simple substitution of one known fastener shape for another to be effective in mask applications and/or for aesthetic design choice.
Regarding Claim 34, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 33.
Modified Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein removing the standard rear strap comprises severing the standard rear strap from the pair of hubs (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections--see Freestone ‘903 customizability and extrinsic evidence Merriam Webster NPL for severing meaning separated; inasmuch as the straps are interchangeable, there is separation).
Regarding Claim 36, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 33.
Modified Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein each of the pair of attachment bosses and each of the adapter ring apertures is D-shaped (see Berthon Fig. 53I for D-shaped).
Regarding Claim 37, modified Freestone '903 teaches all the claimed limitations as discussed above in Claim 33.
Modified Freestone ‘903 further teaches wherein each of the adapter ring apertures has a non-circular geometry configured to inhibit relative rotational movement between the adapter ring and the corresponding attachment boss (as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections—the existence of the ring apertures and bosses meet the recitation of non-circular which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of inhibiting relative rotational movement as recited; nevertheless, see Berthon Fig. 53I for adapter ring 661 with aperture 664; as such, modified Freestone ‘903 teaches non-circular geometry which meets the structural limitations in the claims and performs the functions as recited such as being capable of inhibiting relative rotational movement as recited).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 27, 31 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but may be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Regarding Claim 27, none of the prior art of record discloses a method of securing a headgear assembly to a face shield of a helmet with fasteners such that each adapter ring is captured between a respective one of a pair of hubs of the headgear assembly and an interior surface of the face shield, in conjunction with the other structural limitations, as set forth in the claim. The use of adapter rings and hubs in helmets with fastened face shields is known in the art of helmets, but the specific location of each adapter ring being between an interior surface of the face shield and a hub, in conjunction with the other structural limitations, as claimed by the applicant is novel. Specifically, prior art Freestone et al (USPN 11844903), herein Freestone ‘903, discloses an adapter ring with hub as recited in the application. Prior art Parks (USNP 6948813) also discloses a face shield of a helmet and an adapter ring with hub. However, none of the prior art discloses, teaches, or suggests that an adapter ring would be between the hub and an interior surface of the face shield. To modify Park such that the ring is clearly on the interior surface of the face shield merely to be as recited in the current application would be impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the applicant’s invention without any disclosure, teaching, or suggestion from the prior art of record, as is presently the case.
Regarding Claim 31—Claim 31 is indicated with allowable subject matter similar to that of Claim 27.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Examiner Notes
Claim(s) 35, 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), set forth in this Office action.
Based on the significant amount of new matter added into the claims and specification with the amendments filed, the application should have been filed as a continuation-in-part (CIP). The application was not filed as such, and cannot be changed to a CIP after any examination on the merits, including at this point in prosecution. Even if there is allowable subject matter, no patent can be issued as long as U.S.C. 112 rejections persist, such as pertaining to U.S.C. 112(a) new matter. All new matter must be cancelled before allowable subject matter can help place the application in condition for allowance. Otherwise, if the application was intended to be a CIP, one option is to file a CIP and abandon the instant application.
Furthermore, though Claims 40-43, 45-48 have been withdrawn based election by original presentation, all withdrawn Claims would have also been directed to new matter—1) the original specification only ever disclosed that the ring was 3-D printed ([0026]) without any injection molding (Claims 40, 41, 43, 45-48), and the only instance of any molding, let alone injection molding, was in [0009], which was only directed to straps 208, 210, and 212, and no other elements, such as a boss or hub (Claim 42); 2) the original specification never disclosed anything pertaining to spacing (Claim 45); 3) for Claims 47, 48, depending on whether fasteners is fasteners 222 or bosses 230: the original specification never disclosed the fasteners 222 passing through ring apertures or bosses 230 securing the headgear assembly to a face shield; and 4) for Claim 48, the original specification never indicated the listed materials for the rings other than polycarbonate ([0026]).
Furthermore, the office action herein has made best efforts to identify all new matter and indefiniteness. However, depending on applicant response, additional US.C. 112(a) new matter rejections and/or U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness rejections may be warranted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-48 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Therefore, see aforementioned rejections for the argued missing limitations. Nevertheless, for clarification--
Pertaining to remarks on page 24 that Freestone hub 350 does not constitute adapter rings with apertures –examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claims can be read in light of the specification to help disclose what is included within broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, but that limitations of the specification cannot be read into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969), MPEP 2111. As such, based on broadest reasonable interpretation of the previous set of claims, the Freestone element meets the required structural limitations in the claims. Though remarks indicate that the rings require upper, lower, and outer side surfaces, examiner notes that this is now only claimed in new Claim 45, and is not in all the claim sets. Such a narrow interpretation is not required unless explicitly claimed.
Pertaining to remarks on page 24 that the aperture is required to fit over a boss—examiner respectfully disagrees. Similarly as aforementioned, the term was not previously claimed, and therefore such a narrow interpretation was not required; currently only a related term “placed…over” is in newly amended Claims 12, 28, 33, and previous Claim 19 recited “connecting…over”—however, inasmuch as Freestone ‘903 ring/aperture envelops a boss, the ring aperture is connected over/placed over a boss.
Pertaining to remarks on pages 24-25 that reversal of parts require no functional difference but that Freestone is functionally different from the instant application and therefore reversal of parts does not apply—examiner respectfully disagrees. The evaluation for functional difference is relative to the reference itself, not to the application. There is no functional difference in Freestone with the reversal of parts.
Pertaining to remarks on page 25 that the adapter rings have to be captured between hub and shield and is structurally impossible with the push-fit of Freestone ‘903, that there is rotation resistance—examiner indicates that this is only in the new amendments, and previous examination did not require such a narrow interpretation.
Pertaining to remarks on page 26 that there is no rational underpinning for reversal of parts—examiner respectfully disagrees. Reversal of parts is the rational underpinning for the modification.
Pertaining to remarks on page 26 that the combination of Freestone embodiments is hindsight—examiner respectfully disagrees. As best understood, this is referring to the rejection of Claim 7. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Remarks have not addressed the actual motivation provided for the combination (for example, for Claim 7, on page 9 of the office action 1/28/26). Inasmuch as Freestone ‘903 discloses a variety of embodiments, the embodiments are interchangeable, furthermore in light of Col. 13 Lines 46-49 “components and features of one headgear assembly can be incorporated in other headgear assemblies or can be interchanged with corresponding or similar components or features.”
Pertaining to remarks on page 26 for the claims being directed to a discrete structural body fitting over—examiner again indicates that these elements are not explicitly claimed.
Pertaining to remarks on page 27 onward to Moon—examiner notes that similar responses apply as aforementioned.
Based on amendments—D-shape is still critical, the rest of the shapes are not.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be used to formulate a rejection if necessary: Yeh et al (US Publication 2009/0057941) directed to elastic fabric stretch.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights