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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 5 in the reply filed on 07/28/2026 is acknowledged. All claims read on the elected species.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the headlamp (Claim 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein a first exterior surface of the first arm is convex with respect to the hard hat” which lacks antecedent basis in the written specification. The instant written specification does recite “one or both of arms 324 include a convex portion 327 with respect to the head of the wearer when the face shield 332 is configured in the operating position,” but there is no teaching or suggestion of the first exterior surface being convex in relation to the hard hat. For at least these reasons, the above cited limitation is considered as lacking antecedent basis in the written specification.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein a second exterior surface of the second arm is convex with respect to the hard hat” which lacks antecedent basis in the written specification. The instant written specification does recite “one or both of arms 324 include a convex portion 327 with respect to the head of the wearer when the face shield 332 is configured in the operating position,” but there is no teaching or suggestion of the second exterior surface being convex in relation to the hard hat. For at least these reasons, the above cited limitation is considered as lacking antecedent basis in the written specification.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein a first exterior surface of the first arm and a second exterior surface of the second arm are each convex with respect to the hard hat” which lacks antecedent basis in the written specification. The instant written specification does recite “one or both of arms 324 include a convex portion 327 with respect to the head of the wearer when the face shield 332 is configured in the operating position,” but there is no teaching or suggestion of the first and second exterior surfaces being convex in relation to the hard hat. For at least these reasons, the above cited limitation is considered as lacking antecedent basis in the written specification.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein a first portion of the first arm is convex with respect to face shield” which lacks antecedent basis in the written specification. The instant written specification does recite “one or both of arms 324 include a convex portion 327 with respect to the head of the wearer when the face shield 332 is configured in the operating position,” but there is no teaching or suggestion of the first portion of the first arm being convex in relation to the hard hat. For at least these reasons, the above cited limitation is considered as lacking antecedent basis in the written specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the frame is rigidly coupled to the face shield” which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what “rigidly coupled” is referring to, as rigid is typically referring to the physical properties of a structure, rather than describing a relationship between two structures. For purposes of examination, a rigid coupling will be interpreted as a coupling that is able to be maintained for as long as the user desired. Further, Examiner notes that Claim 6, from which claim 8 depends, recites “wherein the face shield further comprises a frame.” It is not clear how the face shield can both comprise the frame, which suggests the frame is a part of the face shield and are therein considered one structure, and also be “rigidly coupled” to the face shield, which suggests that the face shield and frame are two different structures. Examiner respectfully suggests amending Claim 6 or Claim 8 so the claims are consistent with one another in how they recite the relationship between the frame and the face shield.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the face shield is moveable between an operating position and a stowed position and an operating position” which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if there are two operating positions, or only one operating position that the face shield can repeatedly be moved into. If there are two operating positions intended to be recited, Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claim to read “wherein the face shield is moveable between a first operating position and a stowed position and a second operating position.” If there is only one operating position intended to be recited, Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claims to read “wherein the face shield is moveable between an operating position and a stowed position.” For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret the claim to require only one operating position, as this is what appears to be taught by the instant written specification.
Claim 12 depends from Claim 11 and is likewise rejected due to dependency.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the frame is rigidly coupled to a periphery of the face shield” which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what “rigidly coupled” is referring to, as rigid is typically referring to the physical properties of a structure, rather than describing a relationship between two structures. For purposes of examination, a rigid coupling will be interpreted as a coupling that is able to be maintained for as long as the user desired.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gleason (US 2013/0031693).
Regarding Claim 1, Gleason et al. teaches a hard hat system (see fig. 2) comprising: a hard hat (12) comprising: an external surface (see annotated Fig.) comprising a front (annotated fig. 2 shows the front of the external surface of the hard hat (12)); and an internal surface (see annotated Fig.) that defines a cavity (annotated fig. 10 shows the internal surface defining a cavity); a mounting bracket (14) configured to removably couple to the hard hat (paragraph [0030] teaches “The main mounting bracket 14 is received onto the brim 24 of the hard hat 12 where the mounting tabs 34, 36, 38 hook under and engage the forward edges of the brim 24 of the hard hat 12 (FIG. 12),” wherein the mounting tabs (34, 36, 38) being configured to allow removable coupling); a first arm (see annotated Fig.) pivotally coupled to the mounting bracket (annotated fig. 1 shows the first arm being coupled to the mounting bracket (14), figs. 4-7 show the coupling being a pivotable connection), the first arm rotates with respect to the mounting bracket about a first axis (figs. 4-7 show the first arm rotating with respect to the mounting bracket (12) about a first axis); a second arm (see annotated Fig.) pivotally coupled to the mounting bracket, the second arm rotates with respect to the mounting bracket about the first axis (annotated figs. 2 and 8 and figs. 4-7 show the second arm being coupled to the mounting bracket and the coupling being a pivotable coupling around the first axis); and a face shield (18, 20) coupled to the first arm and the second arm (fig. 8 shows (via dotted lines) the first and second arms being coupled to the face shield (18, 20)), the face shield rotatable with respect to the first arm and the second arm (paragraph [0034] teaches “the second (lower) end of the strut 66 is rotatably connected to a post 76 on the outside surface of the end of the lens mounting bracket 14,” wherein the strut (66) is part of the first and second arms (see annotated fig.) and the post (76) is part of the face shield (18, 20) (see fig. 8)); wherein a first exterior surface (see annotated Fig.) of the first arm is convex with respect to the hard hat (annotated fig. 1 shows the first exterior surface of the first arm being convex with respect to the hard hat).
Regarding Claim 2, Gleason et al. teaches all of the limitations of the hard hat system of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Gleason et al. further teaches wherein a second exterior surface (see annotated Fig.) of the second arm is convex with respect to the hard hat (annotated fig. 1 shows the second exterior surface of the second arm being convex with respect to the hard hat).
Regarding Claim 3, Gleason et al. teaches all of the limitations of the hard hat system of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Gleason et al. further teaches a mounting ridge (24) on the front of the external surface of the hard hat, the mounting ridge comprising opposing projections (see annotated Fig.) extending away from the mounting ridge (annotated fig. 9 shows the mounting ridge (24) on the front external surface of the hard hat having opposing projections extending away from the mounting ridge).
Regarding Claim 4, Gleason et al. teaches all of the limitations of the hard hat system of Claim 3, as discussed in the rejections above. Gleason et al. further teaches wherein the mounting bracket (14) is removably couplable to the mounting ridge (24) (paragraph [0030] teaches “The main mounting bracket 14 is received onto the brim 24 of the hard hat 12 where the mounting tabs 34, 36, 38 hook under and engage the forward edges of the brim 24 of the hard hat 12 (FIG. 12),” wherein the mounting tabs (34, 36, 38) are clearly configured to allow removable coupling to the mounting ridge (24)).
Regarding Claim 5, Gleason et al. teaches all of the limitations of the hard hat system of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Gleason et al. further teaches wherein the first arm extends between a first end (see annotated Fig.) and a second end (see annotated Fig.) that opposes the first end, and wherein the first end is pivotally coupled to the mounting bracket (Annotated fig. 1 shows the first arm extending between a first and a second opposing end; fig. 8 shows (via dotted lines) the first end being coupled to the mounting bracket (14); paragraph [0034] teaches “A first (upper) end of the strut 66 is rotatably connected to a post 74,” and paragraph [0032] teaches “The primary pivot studs 50, 52 are rotatably snap-received into pivot openings 54, 56 in the opposing pivot bosses 30, 32 on the main mounting bracket 14 to rotatably couple the rotating bracket 16 to the main mounting bracket 14,” wherein post (74) and stud (50) pivotably couple the first end to the mounting bracket (14)).
Regarding Claim 6, Gleason et al. teaches all of the limitations of the hard hat system of Claim 5, as discussed in the rejections above. Gleason et al. further teaches wherein the face shield (18, 20) further comprises a frame (18), and wherein the second end of the first arm is pivotally coupled to the frame (fig. 8 shows the second end of the first arm being pivotably connected to the frame (18) via the dotted line; paragraph [0034] teaches “the second (lower) end of the strut 66 is rotatably connected to a post 76,” wherein fig. 8 shows the post (76) disposed on the frame (18)).
Regarding Claim 7, Gleason et al. teaches all of the limitations of the hard hat system of Claim 6, as discussed in the rejections above. Gleason et al. further teaches wherein the first arm (see annotated Fig.) rotates with respect to the frame (18) about a second axis (paragraph [0034] teaches “the second (lower) end of the strut 66 is rotatably connected to a post 76,” wherein fig. 8 shows the post (76) disposed on the frame (18)) and wherein as the first arm is rotatably connected to the frame (18), the first arm clearly is capable of rotating with respect to the frame around a second axis).
Regarding Claim 8 in view of the indefiniteness as explained above, Gleason et al. teaches all of the limitations of the hard hat system of Claim 6, as discussed in the rejections above. Gleason et al. further teaches wherein the frame (18) is rigidly coupled to the face shield (20) (paragraph [0035] The lens 20 is removably secured within the lens channel 60 in the lens mounting bracket 18 whereby the lens 20 is movable through three different positions, namely a "down" as-used position (FIGS. 1-3), an "up" as-used position (FIGS. 4-5), and "stowed" position (FIGS. 6-7),” therein the face shield is considered as being rigidly coupled, as the face shield (20) maintains its connection to the frame (18) while being moved through different positions).
Regarding Claim 9, Gleason et al. teaches all of the limitations of the hard hat system of Claim 1, as discussed in the rejections above. Gleason et al. further teaches the first arm comprising a first angled section (see annotated Fig.) and a second angled section (see annotated Fig.), wherein the first exterior surface is positioned between the first angled section and the second angled section (annotated fig. 1 shows the first and second angled sections and the first exterior surface positioned therebetween).
Regarding Claim 18, Gleason et al. teaches a face shield assembly (10), comprising: a mounting bracket (14) configured to removably couple to a hard hat (paragraph [0030] teaches “The main mounting bracket 14 is received onto the brim 24 of the hard hat 12 where the mounting tabs 34, 36, 38 hook under and engage the forward edges of the brim 24 of the hard hat 12 (FIG. 12),” wherein the mounting tabs (34, 36, 38) being configured to allow removable coupling to a hard hat); a face shield (20); a frame (18) coupled to the face shield (fig. 1 shows the face shield (20) coupled to the frame (18)); a first arm (see annotated Fig.) coupling the frame to the mounting bracket (annotated fig. 1 shows the first arm coupling the frame (18)) to the mounting bracket (14)), the first arm rotatable with respect to the mounting bracket about a first axis (figs. 4-7 show the first arm rotating with respect to the mounting bracket (12) about a first axis); and a second arm (see annotated Fig.) coupling the frame to the mounting bracket (annotated fig. 1 shows the second arm coupling the frame (18)) to the mounting bracket (14)), the second arm rotatable with respect to the mounting bracket about the first axis (figs. 4-7 show the first arm rotating with respect to the mounting bracket (12) about a first axis); wherein a first portion of the first arm is convex with respect to face shield (annotated fig. 1 shows a first portion of the first arm being convex with respect to the face shield).
Regarding Claim 19, Gleason et al. teaches all of the limitations of the face shield assembly of Claim 18, as discussed in the rejections above. Gleason et al. further teaches wherein the face shield (20) is configured to move between an operating position in which the face shield is positioned in front of a face of a wearer and a stowed position in which the face shield is positioned above a front portion of the hard hat (paragraph [0035] teaches “The lens 20 is removably secured within the lens channel 60 in the lens mounting bracket 18 whereby the lens 20 is movable through three different positions, namely a "down" as-used position (FIGS. 1-3), an "up" as-used position (FIGS. 4-5), and "stowed" position (FIGS. 6-7)”, wherein the down or operating position shows the face shield in front of the face of the wearer and the stowed position shows the face shield above the front portion of the hard hat).
Regarding Claim 20, Gleason et al. teaches all of the limitations of the face shield assembly of Claim 18, as discussed in the rejections above. Gleason et al. further teaches wherein the first arm (see annotated Fig.) rotates with respect to the frame (18) about a second axis (paragraph [0034] teaches “the second (lower) end of the strut 66 is rotatably connected to a post 76,” wherein fig. 8 shows the post (76) disposed on the frame (18)) and wherein as the first arm is rotatably connected to the frame (18), the first arm clearly is capable of rotating with respect to the frame around a second axis), and wherein the second axis is distinct from the first axis (annotated fig. 8 shows the first and second axis being distinct, as the first axis extends through the first upper ends of the first and second arm and the second axis extends through the second lower ends of the first and second arm).
PNG
media_image1.png
701
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
670
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
261
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
232
644
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleason (US 2013/0031693) in view of Deshpande et al. (US 2019/0231016).
Regarding Claim 10, Gleason et al. teaches a hard hat system (see fig. 2) comprising: a hard hat (12) comprising: an external surface (see annotated Fig.); and an internal surface (see annotated Fig.) that opposes the external surface (annotated fig. 10 shows the external surface and the opposing internal surface defining a cavity); a mounting bracket (14) configured to removably couple to the external surface of the hard hat (paragraph [0030] teaches “The main mounting bracket 14 is received onto the brim 24 of the hard hat 12 where the mounting tabs 34, 36, 38 hook under and engage the forward edges of the brim 24 of the hard hat 12 (FIG. 12),” wherein the mounting tabs (34, 36, 38) being configured to allow removable coupling); a first arm (see annotated Fig.) pivotally coupled to the mounting bracket (annotated fig. 1 shows the first arm being coupled to the mounting bracket (14), figs. 4-7 show the coupling being a pivotable connection), the first arm rotates with respect to the hard hat about a first axis (figs. 4-7 show the first arm rotating with respect to the mounting bracket (12) about a first axis); a second arm (see annotated Fig.) pivotally coupled to the mounting bracket, the second arm rotates with respect to the hard hat about the first axis (annotated figs. 2 and 8 and figs. 4-7 show the second arm being coupled to the mounting bracket and the coupling being a pivotable coupling around the first axis); and a face shield (20) coupled to the first arm and the second arm via a frame (18) (fig. 8 shows the face shield (20) being coupled to the first and second arms via the frame (18)), the face shield rotates with respect to the first arm and the second arm (paragraph [0034] teaches “the second (lower) end of the strut 66 is rotatably connected to a post 76 on the outside surface of the end of the lens mounting bracket 14,” wherein the strut (66) is part of the first and second arms (see annotated fig.) and the post (76) is part of the frame (18) (see fig. 8), therein allowing the face shield (18) to rotate with respect to the first and second arms as shown in figs. 4-7).
Gleason et al. does not teach a headlamp supported by the hard hat along a front portion of the hard hat.
Attention is drawn to Deshpande et al. which teaches an analogous helmet. Deshpande et al. teaches a hard hat system (100) comprising: a hard hat (1) comprising: an external surface; and an internal surface that opposes the external surface (fig. 1 shows the hard hat (1) comprising an external surface, and clearly comprising an opposing internal surface that would receive a wearer’s head); a headlamp (200) supported by the hard hat along a front portion of the hard hat (fig. 1 shows the headlamp (200) being supported by the hard hat (1) along a front portion of the hard hat).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gleason et al. to include the teachings of Deshpande et al. such that the hard hat system includes a headlamp supported by the hard hat along a front portion of the hard hat so as to allow the wearer to illuminate the work in front of them while keeping their hands free to use other tools.
Regarding Claim 11, Gleason et al. teaches all of the limitations of the hard hat system of Claim 10, as discussed in the rejections above. Gleason et al. further teaches wherein the face shield is moveable between an operating position and a stowed position and an operating position (paragraph [0035] teaches “The lens 20 is removably secured within the lens channel 60 in the lens mounting bracket 18 whereby the lens 20 is movable through three different positions, namely a "down" as-used position (FIGS. 1-3), an "up" as-used position (FIGS. 4-5), and "stowed" position (FIGS. 6-7)”), and wherein the first arm and the second arm are configured to avoid engagement between the face shield and the headlamp (as Gleason et al. teaches the first and second arms extending forward such that the face shield is disposed in front of a brim (24) of the hat, and the headlamp of modified Gleason is disposed on but not extending past the brim of the helmet, the first and second arms of modified Gleason obviously are configured to avoid engagement between the face shield and headlamp).
Regarding Claim 12, Gleason et al. teaches all of the limitations of the hard hat system of Claim 11, as discussed in the rejections above. Gleason et al. further teaches wherein, when the face shield (20) is in the stowed position, the face shield is positioned above the front portion of the hard hat (fig. 7 shows the face shield (18) in a stowed position being positioned above the front portion of the hard hat).
Regarding Claim 13 in view of the indefiniteness as explained above, Gleason et al. teaches all of the limitations of the hard hat system of Claim 10, as discussed in the rejections above. Gleason et al. further teaches wherein the frame (18) is rigidly coupled to a periphery of the face shield (paragraph [0035] The lens 20 is removably secured within the lens channel 60 in the lens mounting bracket 18 whereby the lens 20 is movable through three different positions, namely a "down" as-used position (FIGS. 1-3), an "up" as-used position (FIGS. 4-5), and "stowed" position (FIGS. 6-7),” therein the face shield is considered as being rigidly coupled, as the face shield (20) maintains its connection to the frame (18) while being moved through different positions; fig. 8 shows the frame (18) being coupled to the periphery of the face shield (20)).
Regarding Claim 14, Gleason et al. teaches all of the limitations of the hard hat system of Claim 10, as discussed in the rejections above. Gleason et al. further teaches wherein a first exterior surface (see annotated Fig.) of the first arm and a second exterior surface (see annotated Fig.) of the second arm are each convex with respect to the hard hat (Annotated fig. 8 shows the first and second exterior surfaces of the first and second arm, respectively, are each convex with respect to the hard hat, at least when in a position as shown in fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 15, Gleason et al. teaches all of the limitations of the hard hat system of Claim 10, as discussed in the rejections above. Gleason et al. further teaches wherein the first arm (see annotated Fig.) rotates with respect to the frame (18) about a second axis (paragraph [0034] teaches “the second (lower) end of the strut 66 is rotatably connected to a post 76,” wherein fig. 8 shows the post (76) disposed on the frame (18)) and wherein as the first arm is rotatably connected to the frame (18), the first arm clearly is capable of rotating with respect to the frame around a second axis).
Regarding Claim 16, Gleason et al. teaches all of the limitations of the hard hat system of Claim 15, as discussed in the rejections above. Gleason et al. further teaches wherein the first axis is distinct from the second axis (annotated fig. 8 shows the first and second axis being distinct, as the first axis extends through the first upper ends of the first and second arm and the second axis extends through the second lower ends of the first and second arm).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gleason (US 2013/0031693) in view of Deshpande et al. (US 2019/0231016), and further in view of Jefferis et al. (US 2020/0275724).
Regarding Claim 17, Gleason et al. teaches all of the limitations of the hard hat system of Claim 10, as discussed in the rejections above.
Gleason et al. does not teach wherein a connection between the frame and the first arm is a friction fit.
Attention is drawn to Jeffris et al., which teaches an analogous article of headwear. Jeffris et al. teaches a headwear system comprising a first portion (658A) and a second portion (667), wherein a connection between the first portion and the second portion is a friction fit (paragraph [0250] teaches “The tabs 677 may be sized to define the aperture 675 such that the aperture 675 creates a friction fit with the distal portion 671 of the post 667 when inserted through the aperture 675 to couple the attachment element 658A to the face shield 618.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gleason et al. to include the teachings of Jeffris et al. such that a connection between the frame and the first arm is a friction fit so as to reduce the manufacturing costs by allowing connection without requiring an additional fastener, especially as Gleason et al. appears to show a friction fit (as no other fastening structure is disclosed) but does not explicitly teach this relationship.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16 and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 11937660 in view of Gleason (US 2013/0031693) (Claims 1 and 18) and in view of Gleason (US 2013/0031693) and Deshpande et al. (US 2019/0231016) (Claim 10). See comparison table below:
Instant App '944
USPN 11937660
Rationale
1
A hard hat system comprising: a hard hat comprising:
27
A face shield assembly, comprising
While '660 does not teach a hard hat comprising an external surface comprising a front and an internal surface that defines a cavity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify '660 to include the teachings of Gleason such that a hard hat with an external and an internal surface is included as it would have been obvious to try, and would have a reasonable expectation of success, especially as '660 teaches that the mounting bracket is capable of being coupled to a hard hat
an external surface comprising a front; and an internal surface that defines a cavity;
a mounting bracket configured to removably couple to the hard hat;
a mounting bracket configured to be detachably coupled to a hard hat;
a first arm pivotally coupled to the mounting bracket, the first arm rotates with respect to the mounting bracket about a first axis;
a first arm pivotally coupled to the mounting bracket, the first arm rotates with respect to the mounting bracket around a first axis;
a second arm pivotally coupled to the mounting bracket, the second arm rotates with respect to the mounting bracket about the first axis;
a second arm pivotally coupled to the mounting bracket, the second arm rotates with respect to the mounting bracket around the first axis;
and a face shield coupled to the first arm and the second arm, the face shield rotatable with respect to the first arm and the second arm;
a face shield coupled to each of the first arm and the second arm, the face shield actuates between an operating position and a stowed position…
wherein a first exterior surface of the first arm is convex with respect to the hard hat.
...wherein the first arm and the second arm each comprise a convex portion with respect to a head of the wearer when the face shield is configured in the operating position.
10
A hard hat system comprising: a hard hat comprising:
16
A face shield assembly, comprising:
While '660 does not teach a hard hat comprising an external surface comprising a front and an internal surface that defines a cavity and a headlamp supported by the hard hat along a front portion of the hard hat, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify '660 to include the teachings of Gleason such that a hard hat with an external and an internal surface is included as it would have been obvious to try, and would have a reasonable expectation of success, especially as '660 teaches that the mounting bracket is capable of being coupled to a hard hat, and further would have been obvious to modify '660 to include the teachings of Deshpande et al. so as to allow a user to be able to see in dark spaces while keeping his hands free for other tasks
an external surface; and an internal surface that opposes the external surface;
a headlamp supported by the hard hat along a front portion of the hard hat;
a mounting bracket configured to removably couple to the external surface of the hard hat;
a mounting bracket configured to be detachably coupled to a hard hat;
a first arm pivotally coupled to the mounting bracket, the first arm rotates with respect to the hard hat about a first axis;
a first arm pivotally coupled to the mounting bracket, the first arm rotates with respect to the mounting bracket around a first axis;
a second arm pivotally coupled to the mounting bracket, the second arm rotates with respect to the hard hat about the first axis;
a second arm pivotally coupled to the mounting bracket, the second arm rotates with respect to the mounting bracket around the first axis;
and a face shield coupled to the first arm and the second arm via a frame, the face shield rotates with respect to the first arm and the second arm.
face shield coupled to each of the first arm and the second arm... and a frame coupled to the face shield and pivotally coupled to each of the first arm and the second arm, the frame pivotally rotates with respect to each of the first arm and the second arm about a second axis, the frame is rigidly coupled to the face shield.
18
A face shield assembly, comprising:
27
A face shield assembly, comprising
While '660 does not teach a frame coupled to the face shield, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify '660 to include the teachings of Gleason such that the assembly includes frame coupled to the face shield so as to provide the face shield with additional rigidity and support
a mounting bracket configured to removably couple to a hard hat;
a mounting bracket configured to be detachably coupled to a hard hat;
a face shield; a frame coupled to the face shield;
a face shield coupled to each of the first arm and the second arm, the face shield actuates between an operating position and a stowed position…
a first arm coupling the frame to the mounting bracket, the first arm rotatable with respect to the mounting bracket about a first axis;
a first arm pivotally coupled to the mounting bracket, the first arm rotates with respect to the mounting bracket around a first axis;
and a second arm coupling the frame to the mounting bracket, the second arm rotatable with respect to the mounting bracket about the first axis;
a second arm pivotally coupled to the mounting bracket, the second arm rotates with respect to the mounting bracket around the first axis;
wherein a first portion of the first arm is convex with respect to face shield.
...wherein the first arm and the second arm each comprise a convex portion with respect to a head of the wearer when the face shield is configured in the operating position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEY A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-6597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at (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.
/HALEY A SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights