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 V (Figs. 5 and 6A-6B) in the reply filed on 08/18/2022 is acknowledged. Claims 1-14 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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 15 and 18-23 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.
In claim 15, line 5, “the pocket” renders the claim indefinite, because plural pockets were set forth in the claim, and it is unclear to which one pocket “the pocket” (line 5) refers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 15, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 6,357,051).
Lee discloses a hat (10; see Figs. 3-5 and 8-9) for holding objects (for example the card 11; Figs. 3, 5, and 8), comprising: a crown (3; Fig. 3), a bill (40) attached to said crown, wherein said bill (40) protrudes away from said crown (3) (see Fig. 3); and a plurality of pockets affixed to said bill (the pockets on each side of the rim cloth 91, formed between layers 50/70 and layer 80; see Figs. 3-4), wherein an opening of a pocket (the opening of the left side pocket along left rim 91) faces another opening of another pocket (the opening of the right side pocket along right rim 91; see Fig. 3), such that the opening of the pocket is generally parallel to and directly facing the opening of another pocket (the openings to the two pockets are along rim cloth 91, forming two parallel openings facing each other, as seen in Fig. 4; the opening to the right side pocket in Fig. 3 is shown pulled upwards to access the pocket; see pocket structure described in col. 1, line 65 through col. 2, line 11; col. 3, lines 1-26).
Note that one pocket is formed on the left side of the bill 40, and another pocket is formed on the right side of the bill 40, both being in the gap between visor core (50) and the cloth (80); see Figs. 3-4; col. 3, lines 1-26 and 38-40; col. 5, lines 5-8. The openings to the pockets face each other, since the left pocket is accessed underneath the left trim 91, and the right pocket is accessed under the right trim 91 (see Fig. 3). Thus, the opening of the left pocket faces the opening of the right pocket, and the openings are generally parallel, as claimed.
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses the plurality of pockets is affixed to the bottom
of the bill (see embodiment of Figs. 8-9; col. 4, lines 44-67).
Regarding claim 23, the plurality of pockets are made of a material selected from the group consisting of fabric, plastic, silicone, or combinations thereof (the pockets are made of fabric, since they are formed by cloth 70 and cloth 80; see col. 3, lines 11-26 and 37-40).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gimena (US 2017/0035135).
Gimena discloses a hat for holding objects [0003, 0012], comprising: a crown (3; see Fig. 29), a bill (2) attached to said crown (see Fig. 29), wherein said bill (2) protrudes away from said crown (see Fig. 29); and a plurality of pockets (92, 94) affixed to said bill (Fig. 29; see para. [0060]), wherein an opening of a pocket (the opening at zipper 96A; Fig. 29) faces another opening of another pocket (the opening at zipper 96B; Fig. 29), such that the opening of the pocket is generally parallel to and directly facing the opening of another pocket (see openings at 96A, 96B which face each other and are parallel; Fig. 29). Also see the embodiments of Figs. 34, 35, and 71- 75 which also anticipate claim 15.
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 6,357,051) in view of Tate (US 5,996,116).
Lee discloses a hat for holding objects as in claim 15, however Lee does not disclose that the pockets comprise a material with magnetic properties. Tate discloses a hat 10 (Fig. 1) having a bill 16 (Fig. 1; col. 3, line 66 through col. 4, line 4). The bill (16) comprises a sheet of rubber (24; Fig. 1) impregnated with magnetized ferrous particles throughout (col. 4, lines 11-12). Tate teaches that this forms a magnetic bill which holds magnetically attracted items thereto, such as a golf ball marker (col. 4, lines 35-57). The golf ball marker will be held in position on the bill by magnetic force, as disclosed in col. 4, lines 35-57. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bill of Lee with a magnetic sheet, in order to permit securing of a golf ball marker or other metallic items to the cap bill, as taught by Tate. By providing a magnetized sheet within the bill of Lee, the pockets of Lee, which are positioned on the bill “comprise of a material with magnetic properties”, as in claim 18.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gimena (US 2017/0035135).
Regarding claim 20, Gimena does not disclose that the pockets on the bill (2) have openings which are of different sizes from each other, as recited in claim 20. Gimena does disclose such a structure for the pockets on the crown of the hat, for example see Fig. 62. More specifically, referring to Fig. 29, this embodiment shows two pockets 92,94 on the bill, with the openings to the pockets (96A,96B) being the same size, rather than different sizes as recited in claim 20. In the embodiment of Fig. 62, Gimena discloses two front pockets 340,346 and a back pocket 350 on the crown (see Fig. 62; [0093]). The openings (342,344) to the two pockets 340,346 are of a same size, and the opening 352 for pocket 350 is smaller. Thus, the openings of the plurality of pockets are of different sizes from each other (Fig. 62), as in claim 20. It would have been obvious to provide this three pocket configuration on the bill, adding a third pocket with a smaller opening to the bill in the embodiment shown in Fig. 29, because Gimena specifically teaches that the designs “may be mixed and matched” [0114], and one of skill in the art would recognize that an additional smaller pocket would provide convenient storage for smaller items on the bill. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a third smaller pocket on the bill of the Fig. 29 embodiment of Gimena, this pocket having a smaller opening, in order to provide a small pocket to hold smaller items, as taught by Gimena with respect to the embodiment of Fig. 62.
In so modifying the cap of Gimena to have the three pockets of Fig. 62 on the bill, the limitations of claim 21 are met. Specifically, in Fig. 62, pockets 340 and 346 are actually one large pocket which has a “divider” 348 separating the structure into the two pockets 340, 346 [0093]. This forms a pocket of the plurality of pockets which is separated into smaller pockets (340,346) as in claim 21. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the three pockets of the Fig. 62 embodiment on the bill of the Fig. 29 embodiment of Gimena, in order to provide three pockets rather than just two pockets on the bill, for carrying of more items in separate compartments as is known in the art. Also, it is noted that Gimena teaches that the designs of the different embodiments may be “mixed and matched” [0114].
In so modifying the cap of Gimena to have the three pockets (Fig. 62) on the bill (Fig. 29), the limitations of claim 22 are met, because the one of the three pockets which is positioned closest to the free end of the bill would be “nearer to an outer edge of the bill than an inner edge of the bill”, as in claim 22.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/06/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(b) and MPEP § 609.04(a) because the NPL citation #2 is improper. This NPL citation lacks a publication date.
See MPEP § 609.04(a):
Each publication must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, and date and place of publication. When no page numbers are supplied, it is understood that all of the pages of the publication are the relevant pages. The date of publication supplied must include at least the month and year of publication, except that the year of publication (without the month) will be accepted if the applicant points out in the information disclosure statement that the year of publication is sufficiently earlier than the effective U.S. filing date and any foreign priority date so that the particular month of publication is not in issue. The place of publication refers to the name of the journal, magazine, or other publication in which the information being submitted was published. See MPEP § 707.05(e), for more information on data that should be used when citing publications and electronic documents.
…
For publications obtained from the internet, the uniform resource locator (URL) of the webpage that is the source of the publication must be provided for the place of publication (e.g., "www.uspto.gov"). The publisher may be evident from the URL of the webpage. See MPEP § 707.05(e) for examples on listing documents retrieved from the internet, including social media posts and screen shots from videos. In particular, see examples 17 and 18. Further, for an internet publication obtained from a website that archives webpages, both the URL of the archived webpage submitted for consideration and the URL of the website from which the archived copy of the webpage was obtained should be provided on the document listing (e.g., "Hand Tools," webpage <http://www.farmshopstore.com/handtools.html>, 1 page, August 18, 2009, retrieved from Internet Archive Wayback Machine <http://web.archive.org/web/20090818144217/ http://www.farmshopstore.com/handtools.html> on December 20, 2012). Where the actual publication date of a non-patent document is not known, the applicant must, at a minimum, provide a date of retrieval (e.g., the date a webpage was retrieved) or a time frame (e.g., a year, a month and year, a certain period of time ) when the document was available as a publication.
It is noted that the previously missing copies of these documents were received on 02/28/2023, and NPL citations #1 and #3 have been provided with a date, however NPL citation #2 lacks a date. Accordingly, this citation has been lined through on the IDS form.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15 and 18-23, specifically as to the rejection of claim 15 as anticipated by Oppenheimer and anticipated by Levine, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on these references. Specifically, the amendment of 10/06/2025 overcomes the rejection of claim 15 as anticipated by Oppenheimer and by Levine, however claim 15 as amended is anticipated by Lee and Gimena, as set forth in the rejections above. Applicant’s arguments as to Oppenheimer and Levine are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendment to claim 15. Lee and Gimena disclose headwear having the structure of claim 15.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY VANATTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs and alternate Fridays.
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 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.
/AMY VANATTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732