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 .
Status of Claims
In response to the Application filed 8 January 2025, claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
Drawings
Figures 1-9 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (Figs. 1-9 were used in KR 10-2337456 B1). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “200” has been used to designate both a hat decoration and a detachable character patch (see paras. 26-27), and character “110” has been used to designate both a hemispherical body portion and a body portion (para. 95 and at least para. 96). 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.
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 following structures must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Claims 1 and 3: “character 3D image”, it is noted that only a character 2D image is shown;
Claim 3, “a functional detachable character patch comprising: … (2) a second layer having a front surface that is made of velcro capable of being attached to the velcro of the first layer, and a back surface to which a layer including a functional component is attached; and (3) a third layer having a front surface that is an adhesive surface attached to the layer including the functional component of the second layer, and a back surface that is configured of a base patch for mounting on an application target”.
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 substitute specification filed 8 January 2025 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: the marked-up copy of the substitute specification has not been supplied (only the clean copy has been supplied).
The use of the term velcro, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. Claim(s) 10 is/are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, claims 6, 8, and 10 have not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: "attachment means for fixedly securing the shields". Claim 9 line 11 sets forth the recitation “a first attaching and detaching means”, which did not invoke 112f because there is structure defined in the claim (a plurality of plastic hook protrusions). Claim 9 lines 15 and 26 sets forth the recitation “second attaching and detaching means”, which did not invoke 112f because there is structure defined in the claim (a plurality of loops). Claim 9 lines 19, 23, and 32 sets forth the recitation “third attaching and detaching means”, which invoked 112f because it recites a means plus function without sufficient structure in the claim.
For claim 9 lines 19, 23, and 32, the corresponding/equivalent structure is defined in para. 30 of the specification, where the third attaching and detaching means are a plurality of loops.
For claim 9 lines 11, 15, and 26, the claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9 is/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, regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 contain an abbreviation, “3D”, which renders the claim scope uncertain since the abbreviation cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. In the present case, the identification/description of the abbreviation is indefinite. Applicant is respectfully advised to clarify/define in the claim limitation which material is abbreviated as “D”. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets “3D” as three dimensional. Claims 1 and 3 is/are rejected as best understood.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 contain the trademark/trade name velcro. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a hook and loop fastener and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Claims 1 and 3 is/are rejected as best understood.
Claim 3 is rejected as being indefinite or failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the layers of the detachable character patch and the layers of the cap body. After a full review of Applicant’s disclosure, it is unclear how the detachable character patch 200 has a first, second, and third layer as required by the preamble and claim limitation “a functional detachable character patch comprising: … (2) a second layer having a front surface that is made of velcro capable of being attached to the velcro of the first layer, and a back surface to which a layer including a functional component is attached; and (3) a third layer having a front surface that is an adhesive surface attached to the layer including the functional component of the second layer, and a back surface that is configured of a base patch for mounting on an application target”. After further review of Fig. 15, it appears the first layer and the associated structures of the first layer are defining the detachable character patch, but the second and third layers and associated structures of the second and third layers, respectively, are defining structures of the cap body, not the detachable character patch. Applicant is respectfully advised to clarify whether the second and third layers and associated structures of the second and third layers, respectively, are defining structures of the cap body, or a garment. Applicant is also advised to clarify if a cap body/garment was intended to be positively claimed. Additionally, the structure for the limitation “and a back surface to which a layer including a functional component is attached” is unclear and requires further clarification of where/how the back surface of the second layer is attached to the functional detachable character patch; it is further unclear what structure is referenced as “a functional component”. Further, it is unclear which layer is attached to the third layer’s front surface and which structure is considered “a functional component” in the recitation “a third layer having a front surface that is an adhesive surface attached to the layer including the functional component of the second layer”. The meaning of the limitation “and a back surface that is configured of a base patch for mounting on an application target” is also unclear and is respectfully advised to be clarified. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the second and third layers and associated structures of the second and third layers, respectively, are defining structures of the cap body. Examiner additionally interprets the limitation “and a back surface to which a layer including a functional component is attached” as “and the front surface is attached to the functional detachable character patch”. Examiner further interprets the limitation “a third layer having a front surface that is an adhesive surface attached to the layer including the functional component of the second layer” as “a third layer having a front adhesive surface attached to the front surface of the second layer”; and interprets the limitation “and a back surface that is configured of a base patch for mounting on an application target” as “and the back surface of the functional detachable character patch is configured for mounting on an application target area”. Claim 3 is rejected as best understood by Examiner.
Claim 5 is rejected as being indefinite or failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the meaning of “wherein the layer including the functional component is…”. After a full review of Applicant's disclosure it is unclear which layer (first, second, or third, as best understood and presented in claim 3) includes a liquid layer as defined by claim 5. Applicant is respectfully advised to clarify which “functional component” includes a liquid layer. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the functional detachable character patch as including a liquid layer. Claim 5 is rejected as best understood by Examiner.
Claim 9 is rejected as being indefinite or failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the meaning of “a first attaching and detaching means…made of nylon by mold injection” and “a second attaching and detaching means… formed by weaving a polyester material by a knitting method and then performing nap processing”. It is unclear whether Applicant intends to claim either an apparatus or a method, or both an apparatus and a method steps in the limitation as presented. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). Applicant is respectfully advised to clarify whether the limitation is claiming one of or both an apparatus and a method by reciting “configured to”. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the limitation as an apparatus, wherein the first attaching and detaching means is configured to be made of nylon by mold injection, and further the second attaching and detaching means is configured to be formed by weaving a polyester material by a knitting method and then performing nap processing. Claim 9 is rejected as best understood by Examiner.
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) 1-2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dornak (US 6,643,847 B1).
Regarding claim 1, insofar as is definite, Dornak teaches a detachable character patch (120) wherein a front surface is printed with a character 3D image or a dynamic image (Fig. 2; col. 3 lines 4-9 discloses 124 has a design on a front surface, 124 is a screen print, and 124 has a design, and therefore, 124 is a “dynamic image”), and a back surface is configured of a detachable velcro (Fig. 2; col. 3 lines 4-9 discloses a back surface has a hook fastener element 126; col. 2 lines 62-67 teaches the fastener is removable, and therefore, detachable).
Regarding claim 2, Dornak teaches a method for decorating clothes, bags, hats, masks, wallets, vehicles, mobile phones, electronic devices, or furniture by using the detachable character patch according to claim 1 (col. 2 lines 10-17 and lines 62-67 through col. 3 lines 1-16 teaches a method for decorating hats by using the detachable character patch of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Dornak teaches a detachable accessory hat (100) decorated by using the detachable character patch according to claim 1 (Fig. 2).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-4, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dornak (US 6,643,847 B1), in view of Regan (US 2018/0042325 A1).
Regarding claim 3, insofar as is definite, Dornak discloses a functional detachable character patch (120) comprising:
(1) a first layer (Fig. 2) having a front surface that is printed with a 3D character image or a dynamic image (Fig. 2; col. 3 lines 4-9 discloses 124 has a design on a front surface, 124 is a screen print, and 124 has a design, and therefore, 124 is a “dynamic image”), and a back surface that is made of detachable velcro (Fig. 2; col. 3 lines 4-9 discloses a back surface has a hook fastener element 126; col. 2 lines 62-67 teaches the fastener is removable, and therefore, detachable).
Dornak does not directly disclose (2) a second layer having a front surface that is made of velcro capable of being attached to the velcro of the first layer, and a back surface to which a layer including a functional component is attached; and (3) a third layer having a front surface that is an adhesive surface attached to the layer including the functional component of the second layer, and a back surface that is configured of a base patch for mounting on an application target.
However, Regan teaches a hat (Figs. 1A-1B and 4A; it is noted that Fig. 4A employs Figs. 1A-1B) with a functional detachable character patch (116 with 154 surface); a second layer (150, as best understood) having a front surface that is made of velcro (Fig. 1A & para. 44, the front surface of 150 faces 154 of 116) capable of being attached to the velcro of the first layer (Fig. 1A & para. 44), and a back surface to which a layer including a functional component is attached (Fig. 1A & para. 44, as best understood); and (3) a third layer (102) having a front surface (surface at 108; para. 45 & Fig. 1A) that is an adhesive surface (para. 45 discloses 112 is at the surface of 108) attached to the layer including the functional component of the second layer (Fig. 1A and paras. 43-45), and a back surface that is configured of a base patch for mounting on an application target (Fig. 1A and paras. 43-45, as best understood).
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 the functional detachable character patch and garment of Dornak to include the limitations regarding a second layer and a third layer, as taught by Regan, in order to better secure the patch onto the hat and to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Further, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 4, Dornak and Regan disclose the functional detachable character patch according to claim 3.
Dornak does not directly disclose wherein when the velcro on the back surface of the first layer is velours.
However, it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the Velcro on the back surface of the first layer is velours, and make the Velcro on the back surface of the first layer is crochet, since there are only a finite number of predictable solutions, especially for a hook and loop fastener. Either the hooks/crochet are on the back surface, or the loops/velours are on the back surface. Thus, providing a loop/velours arrangement wherein said “hooks/crochet” would have been an obvious alternate hook and loop structure in order to provide a specific design choice because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp”. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might should that it was obvious under §103. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). See MPEP 2143.
Dornak as modified by Regan does not further disclose the velcro on the front surface of the second layer is a crochet, and when the velcro on the back surface of the first layer is crochet, the velcro on the front surface of the second layer is velours.
However, it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the velcro on the front surface of the second layer is a crochet, and when the velcro on the back surface of the first layer is crochet, the velcro on the front surface of the second layer is velours, and vice versa, make the velcro on the front surface of the second layer is a velours, and when the velcro on the back surface of the first layer is velours, the velcro on the front surface of the second layer is crochet, since there are only a finite number of predictable solutions, especially for a hook and loop fastener. Either the hooks/crochet are on the back surface, or the loops/velours are on the back surface. Thus, providing a loops/velours arrangement wherein said “hooks/crochet” would have been an obvious alternate hook and loop structure in order to provide a specific design choice because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp”. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was obvious to try might should that it was obvious under §103. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 9, insofar as is definite, Dornak teaches the detachable accessory hat according to claim 7, wherein the hat comprising: a cap body (100) (100) formed of a hemispherical body portion (110) (102), and configured of a cap portion (120) (109) protruding forward from a lower end of the body portion (110) (Fig. 2);
a detachable character patch (200) (120) mounted on the cap body (100) (col. 2 lines 62-67 through col. 3 lines 1-9), made in a thin and flat shape so as to be capable of being easily bent and adhered to the cap body (100) (Fig. 2) when mounted on the cap body (100) (col. 2 lines 62-67 through col. 3 lines 1-9);
a first attaching and detaching means (300) (Fig. 2; col. 3 lines 4-9 discloses a surface with a hook fastener element 126; col. 2 lines 62-67 teaches the fastener is removable, and therefore, detachable and attachable) mounted on the detachable character patch (200) (Fig. 2; col. 3 lines 4-9), made of nylon by mold injection (as best understood, the limitation “made of nylon by mold injection” is considered a functional limitation; The recitation “made of nylon by mold injection” is deemed a product-by process limitation in the claim. Although the structure of Dornak may be formed by a different process, the end product is the same as that of Applicant’s claimed invention. The determination of patentability in a product-by process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113), and having a plurality of plastic hook protrusions (310) formed on a front surface thereof (Fig. 2; col 2 lines 4-9 and 62-67, where “a front surface is the surface with 126; hook and loop fasteners are known to be made of plastic);
a second attaching and detaching means (400) (104) mounted on the hat body (100) (Fig. 2; col 2 lines 62- col 3 lines 1-4) and having a plurality of loops (410) (col 3 lines 1-4) formed by weaving a polyester material by a knitting method and then performing nap processing (hook and loop fasteners are known to be made of plastic; as best understood, the recitation is considered a functional limitation; The recitation “formed by weaving a polyester material by a knitting method and then performing nap processing” is deemed a product-by process limitation in the claim. Although the structure of Dornak may be formed by a different process, the end product is the same as that of Applicant’s claimed invention. The determination of patentability in a product-by process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113).
Dornak also does not directly disclose a third attaching and detaching means (500) where an opening (150) is openly formed in the hat body (100), and which is provided inside the hat body (100) along a circumference of the opening (150),in the third attaching and detaching means (500), a plurality of loops are formed through nap processing after weaving the fabric by a knitting method, the second attaching and detaching means (400) includes an exposed porn (400a) to which the hat decoration (200) is detachably coupled; and a coupling portion (400b) provided along a circumference of the exposed portion (400a) and detachably coupled to the third attaching and detaching means (500), and the hook protrusion (310) includes a plurality of support portions (311) formed by protruding upward and spaced apart from each other at regular intervals; and a locking portion (312) protruding away from a front end of the support portion (311) in a width direction and formed in an upwardly convex arc shape.
However, Regan teaches a hat (Figs. 1A-1B and 4A; it is noted that Fig. 4A employs Figs. 1A-1B) with a detachable character patch (116 with 154 surface); a third attaching and detaching means (500) (102) where an opening (150) (106) is openly formed in the hat body (100) (para. 43; Fig. 1A), and which is provided inside the hat body (100) (Fig. 1A) along a circumference of the opening (150) (Fig. 1A & 4), in the third attaching and detaching means (500), a plurality of loops (150; para. 44) are formed through nap processing after weaving the fabric by a knitting method (The recitation “formed through nap processing after weaving the fabric by a knitting method” is deemed a product-by process limitation in the claim. Although the structure of Regan may be formed by a different process, the end product is the same as that of Applicant’s claimed invention. The determination of patentability in a product-by process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113; The recitation is also viewed as functional, as best understood), the second attaching and detaching means (400) (102) includes an exposed portion (400a) (surface at 108; para. 45 & Fig. 1A) to which the hat decoration (200) is detachably coupled (Fig. 1A and paras. 43-45, as best understood); and a coupling portion (400b) (para. 45 discloses 112 is at the surface of 108) provided along a circumference of the exposed portion (400a) (Figs. 1A & 4) and detachably coupled to the third attaching and detaching means (500) (Figs. 1A & 4), and the hook protrusion (310) includes a plurality of support portions (311) (112) formed by protruding upward and spaced apart from each other at regular intervals (Fig. 1A); and a locking portion (312) (left and right 118) protruding away from a front end of the support portion (311) in a width direction (Fig. 1B; Fig. 1B also shows the distance between left and right 118 portions is “a width direction”) and formed in an upwardly convex arc shape (Fig. 1B & 4 as assembled, the upwardly convex arc shape follows the arc shape of the hat as shown).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dornak (US 6,643,847 B1) and Regan (US 2018/0042325 A1), in view of Davis (US 2020/00404997 A1).
Regarding claim 5, insofar as is definite, modified Dornak discloses the functional detachable character patch according to claim 3, except for wherein the layer including the functional component is a liquid layer including a volatile antibacterial component, an aromatic component, or a deodorizing component, or a fabric layer impregnated or sprayed with a volatile antibacterial component, an aromatic component, or a deodorizing component.
However, Davis teaches a functional detachable character patch (para. 7), wherein the layer including the functional component is a liquid layer including a volatile antibacterial component, an aromatic component, or a deodorizing component, or a fabric layer impregnated or sprayed with a volatile antibacterial component, an aromatic component, or a deodorizing component (para. 7, aromatic oil; oil is a liquid).
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 the functional detachable character patch of Dornak to include a liquid layer including an aromatic component, as taught by Davis, in order to reduce anxiety to the wearer (para. 7).
Conclusion
15 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See similar garments with ornamental structures cited on the PTO-892 form attached to this Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIAO QT HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7557. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am - 5 pm ET.
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.
/G.Q.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/KHOA D HUYNH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732