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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: connectors 130 are found in the specification, but not found in the Figures. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riegle et al. (US 2021/0378343) in view of Udelhofen (US 2008/0163410).
In regard to claim 1, Riegle et al. teaches a faceguard assembly comprising (see annotated figure below): an upper section comprising: a left side bar; a right side bar (symmetrical opposite side of facemask); at least one upper bar extending between the left side bar and the right side bar (see annotated figure below); a left connecting bar and a right connecting bar extending downward from the left side bar and the right side bar (symmetrical opposite side of facemask), respectively, in an inclined vertical direction (see annotated figure below); a left lower section extending from a distal end of the left connecting bar (see annotated figure below); a right lower section extending from a distal end of the right connecting bar (symmetrical opposite side of facemask).
PNG
media_image1.png
499
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Riegle et al. fails to teach a left tensioning member connected between the distal end of the left connecting bar and a distal end of the left side bar; and a right tensioning member connected between the distal end of the right connecting bar and a distal end of the right side bar.
Udelhofen teaches a helmet wherein tensioning members are connected between a distal end of a left connecting bar and a distal end of a left side bar; and a right tensioning member connected between a distal end of a right connecting bar and a distal end of a right side bar (paragraph 0046, Figure 15, identifiers 38 and 44).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the faceguard of Riegle et al. with the tensioning members as taught by Udelhofen, since the faceguard of Riegle et al. provided with tensioning members located on the lower side facemask bar between the distal ends of the side bars and connecting bars would provide a facemask that absorb a high percentage of impact energy (Udelhofen: paragraph 0046).
In regard to claim 2, Riegle teaches wherein the at least one upper bar comprises a first upper bar and a second upper bar both extending between the left side bar and the right side bar (see upper bar and lower upper bar in figure 1).
In regard to claim 7, Riegle teaches wherein a distal end of the left side bar and a distal end of the right bar are configured to attach to the headgear (distal end of side bars (left and right) are configured to attach to headgear via coupler 114 in figure 5).
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riegle et al. (US 2021/0378343) and Udelhofen (US 2008/0163410) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Erb et al. (US 9,833,033).
Riegle et al. and Udelhofen fail to teach the first upper bar comprises a recessed portion.
In regard to claim 3, Erb et al. teaches a facemask with a first upper bar that has a recessed portion (see figure 1 recessed central portion of upper bar).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the first upper bar of Riegle et al. to be recessed as taught by Erb et al., since the first upper bar of Riegle et al. being recessed would provide a facemask upper bar that
is shaped to even better dissipate impacts at the front portion of the shell (Erb et al.: column 8, lines 45-53).
In regard to claim 4, Riegle et al. teaches wherein the first upper bar comprises a plurality of connectors that is adapted to attach the upper section to a headgear (connectors: 114, figure 3, paragraph 0062).
In regard to claim 5, Riegle et al. teaches wherein the upper section further comprises a plurality of reinforcement ribs connected between the first upper bar and the second upper bar (reinforcement ribs: as annotated in figure 1 above).
In regard to claim 6, Riegle et al. teaches wherein the second upper bar further comprises a plurality of side projections (side projections are the reinforcement ribs as annotated in figure 1 above that connect the first and second bar).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riegle et al. (US 2021/0378343) and Udelhofen (US 2008/0163410) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaye (US 2020/0315280).
Riegle et al. and Udelhofen fail to teach wherein the left lower section and the right lower section each comprise a mesh.
In regard to claim 8, Kaye teaches a helmet facemask with a right and left lower section that each comprise a mesh material (filtering element: 6, paragraph 0035).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the right and left lower section of Riegle et al. and Udelhofen with the mesh filtering element as taught by Kaye, since the lower facemask section of Riegle et al. and Udelhofen provided with a mesh filter element would teach a facemask with additional protection properties against pathogens (see paragraph 0035 of Kaye).
Claim(s) 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riegle et al. (US 2021/0378343), Udelhofen (US 2008/0163410), and Kaye (US 2020/0315280) as applied above to claim 8 and in further view of White (US 5,963,990).
Riegle et al. (US 2021/0378343), Udelhofen (US 2008/0163410), and Kaye (US 2020/0315280) fail to teach the left and right lower section not being coplanar.
In regard to claim 9, White teaches a facemask wherein the left and right lower section are not coplanar (see figure 1 and column 3, lines 5-12, lower facemask can be flexed opened and closed on one side due to non-attached constructed that creates a not coplanar right and left lower section).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the lower facemask section of Riegle et al., Udelhofen, and Kaye with the non-attached movable lower facemask section of White, since the lower facemask section of Riegle et al., Udelhofen, and Kaye provided with separable lower facemask bars that move relative to one another so that the right and left side are not coplanar providing a facemask that does not allow for good grip during tackling (White: column 3, lines 30-38).
In regard to claim 10, Riegle et al. teaches wherein the left lower section comprises a first left lower bar and a second left lower bar (see left lower section in annotated figure 1 above and second left lower bar, being the bar above it or attached at the center of the mask to the first lower bar).
In regard to claim 11, Riegle et al. wherein the first left lower bar comprises a first left lower opening area (the left lower bar comprising a left lower opening area above and on the sides of the left first and second lower bar in Figure 1), the second left lower bar comprises a second left lower opening area (the left lower bar comprising a second left lower opening area above and on the sides of the left first and second lower bar in Figure 1).
Kaye teaches the mesh covering a lower section of a facemask that would cover the first left lower opening area and the second left lower opening area of Riegle et al. (Kaye: filtering element: 6, paragraph 0035 and Riegle et al.: figure 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the right and left lower section and openings of Riegle et al. with the mesh filtering element as taught by Kaye, since the lower facemask section of Riegle et al. provided with a mesh filter element would teach a facemask with additional protection properties against pathogens (see paragraph 0035 of Kaye).
In regard to claim 12, Riegle et al. teaches wherein the right lower section comprises a first right lower bar and a second right lower bar (see right lower section in figure 1 above and second right lower bar, being the bar above it or attached at the center of the mask to the first lower bar).
In regard to claim 13, Riegle et al. teaches wherein the first right lower bar comprises a first right lower opening area (the left lower bar comprising a left lower opening area above and on the sides of the left first and second lower bar in Figure 1), the second right lower bar comprises a second right lower opening area (the left lower bar comprising a second left lower opening area above and on the sides of the left first and second lower bar in Figure 1).
Kaye teaches the mesh covering a lower section of a facemask that would cover the first right lower opening area and the second right lower opening area of Riegle et al. (Kaye: filtering element: 6, paragraph 0035 and Riegle et al.: figure 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the right and left lower section and openings of Riegle et al. with the mesh filtering element as taught by Kaye, since the lower facemask section of Riegle et al. provided with a mesh filter element would teach a facemask with additional protection properties against pathogens (see paragraph 0035 of Kaye).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found cited in PTO-892 form submitted herewith. The cited prior art to Fletcher (US 2017/0042273) is of particular relevance to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISSA L HOEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4985. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-5:30 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, Clinton T Ostrup can be reached at (571)272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
ALISSA L. HOEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732