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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 4, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
As directed by the amendment received on December 4, 2025, claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2, 4-5, and 12 were previously canceled. Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 6-11, and 13-16 are currently pending in this application with claims 15-16 being previously withdrawn from further consideration.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on December 4, 2025, have been considered and an action on the merits follows. Any objections and rejections previously put forth in the Office Action dated August 7, 2025, are hereby withdrawn unless specifically noted below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1, 3, 6-11, and 13-14 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 1 recites the limitation “the overlapping edge portions of the adjacent panels” at line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “overlapping edge portions of the adjacent panels”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the bonded edges” at lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that lines 8-9 instead read “overlapping edge portions of the adjacent panels are trimmed and fused by the ultrasonic bonding to form bonded edges” in order to properly introduce the limitation and clearly relate it to the previously introduced structure. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the bonded edge” at lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “the bonded edges” to agree with the previously introduced term. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claims 3, 6-11, and 13-14 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 11, and 13-14, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0272432 to Cho (hereinafter, “Cho”), in view of US 2013/0153119 to Hannon (hereinafter, “Hannon”), and in view of USPN 6,493,880 to Lo (hereinafter, “Lo”).
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches a cap comprising: a crown portion, the crown portion having a plurality of panels connected together (See Cho, Figs. 1A-2; hat (100) having head receiving portion (101) formed by panels (110, 110’); Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), a brim portion attached to a lower end of the crown portion (See Cho, Fig. 1A; visor portion (103) attached to lower end of head receiving portion (101)), and a sweat absorbing portion attached to an inner lower end of the crown portion (See Cho, Fig. 1B; lower inner band of hat attached to inner lower end of head receiving portion (101)), wherein at least two adjacent panels among the plurality of panels are overlapped and joined by a stitching (See Cho, Figs. 1A-2; panels (110, 110’) are overlapped with one another and joined at intermediate location of respective sewing portions (113, 113’) by sewing line (111)), a seam sealing tape is attached to cover the stitching (See Cho, Figs. 1A-2; maintenance enhancing layer (107) which can be a tape is attached to cover stitched portion of the seam; tape (107) adhesively seals seam; [0032]-[0033], [0037]).
That said, Cho is silent to the panels being joined simultaneously with an ultrasonic bond as well as the stitching.
However, Hannon, in a related garment seaming art, is directed to a seam system for connecting garment panels, such as in a hat garment, that includes an ultrasonic weld at panel edges spaced from another seam placed at an intermediate location on each panel (See Hannon, Figs. 1A-2; [0014]). More specifically, Hannon teaches the panels being joined with an ultrasonic bond (See Hannon, Figs. 1A-2; cut weld (14) is a bond formed at panel edges by ultrasonic fusion spaced away from inner seam (6) positioned at intermediate location of panels; [0032]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to instead connect the panel edges of Cho with the ultrasonic fusing disclosed by Hannon for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, in order to further reinforce the existing, inner sewing line connection of Cho with an additional edge connection and to reduce liquid ingress at the seam (See Hannon, [0003], [0008]). Examiner notes that Cho lends itself to the modification by Hannon, in that similar to Cho, the fused-edge panel seam of Hannon is capable of being covered on an outer side by a reinforcement layer (See Hannon, Fig. 1B and Cho, Fig. 2). Therefore, replacement of one panel edge connection with another, as described in the modification above, would not disrupt the functionality of Cho.
As a result of the above modification, the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Hannon, as discussed above) further teaches the panels being joined simultaneously by both the stitching and the ultrasonic bond (Examiner notes that being joined simultaneously is a product-by-process limitation; the resulting structure of the prior art, i.e., a resulting joining having both a stitching and an ultrasonic bond, meets the structural requirements of the claim limitation), the overlapping edge portions of the adjacent panels are trimmed and fused by the ultrasonic bonding (See Hannon, Figs. 1A-2; cut weld (14) both trims and fuses edges of adjacent panels), the stitching is disposed at a position inward of and spaced apart from the bonded edges (See Cho, Figs. 1A-2; sewing line (111) is formed at intermediate location spaced from the end, i.e., the edge, of each respective panel which are bonded in the modified cap of Cho as discussed above; Examiner notes that the term "edge" is structurally broad and has a definition of "the border, brim, or margin of a surface, object, etc" (Noun defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), the seam sealing tape being attached to cover both the ultrasonic bond and the stitching (See Cho, Figs. 1A-2; maintenance enhancing layer (107) which can be a tape is attached and would cover both stitched and ultrasonic bonded portions of the seam in the modified cap of Cho as discussed above).
That said, the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Hannon, as discussed above) is silent to the plurality of panels are formed of synthetic fiber, natural fiber, or a combination of the synthetic fiber and the natural fiber.
However, Lo, in a related headwear art, is directed to an adjustable headwear in the form of a cap or visor that is adjustable to fit wearers in a range of head sizes (See Lo, Figs. 1-7; abstract). More specifically, Lo teaches the plurality of panels are formed of synthetic fiber, natural fiber, or a combination of the synthetic fiber and the natural fiber (See Lo, Fig. 1; cap (10) may be formed from a material of blended polyester and wool with polyurethane elastic yarns woven in the weft direction; Col. 5, lines 7-8).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the modified cap of Cho from the material disclosed by Lo in order to form the hat from a stretchable material that would allow the hat to comfortably fit wearers in a range of head sizes (See Lo, abstract), and further since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (e.g., allowing a hat to comfortably fit wearers in a range of head sizes). See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 3, although the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Hannon and Lo, as applied to claims 1 above) teaches the general conditions of the stitching being separated from the bonded edges of the adjacent panels by a distance, the modified cap of Cho is silent to wherein: the stitching is disposed at a distance of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm inward from the bonded edge.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to configure the separation distance so that the stitching and the edge of the overlapping ends are separated by a distance of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm depending on the size of the cap, panels, and desired size of the seam. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Examiner further notes the absence of a showing of criticality for the specific separation distance from Applicant’s disclosure. Indeed, Applicant’s disclosure does not compare the success of the claimed separation distance to that of another range of values to inform that the claimed range is critical.
Regarding claim 6, the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Hannon and Lo, as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein: an adhesive is coated to one side of the seam sealing tape, and the seam sealing tape is attached to the ultrasonic bond and the stitching by the adhesive (tape (107) includes thermal adhesive layer (107a-1) which attaches to the ultrasonic bonded and sewn portions of the seam in the modified cap of Cho; See Cho, [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 7, the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Hannon and Lo, as applied to claims 1 and 6 above) further teaches wherein: the seam sealing tape is attached to the ultrasonic bond and the stitching by thermal adhesion (tape (107) includes thermal adhesive layer (107a-1) which attaches to the ultrasonic bonded and sewn portions of the seam in the modified cap of Cho; See Cho, [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 9, although the tape of the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Hannon and Lo, as applied to claim 1 above) is disclosed as having some width, the modified cap of Cho is silent to wherein: the seam sealing tape has a width of 10 mm to 20 mm.
However, Hannon further teaches wherein: the seam sealing tape has a width of 10 mm to 20 mm (See Hannon, Figs. 1A-1B; thermal seam tape reinforcement (5) has a width of not more than 15 mm; [0035]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to configure the seam sealing tape of the modified cap of Cho to have the width disclosed by Hannon in order to fully cover and seal the seam depending on the size of the seam. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Examiner further notes the absence of a showing of criticality for the specific seam sealing tape width from Applicant’s disclosure. Indeed, Applicant’s disclosure does not compare the success of the claimed seam sealing tape width to that of another range of values to inform that the claimed range is critical.
Regarding claim 11, the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Hannon and Lo, as applied to claims 1 and 6 above) further teaches wherein: the adhesive has a thickness of 20 µm to 200 µm (thermal adhesive layer (107a-1) of tape can be 20-60 µm; See Cho, [0036]).
Regarding claim 13, the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Hannon and Lo, as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein: the plurality of panels are formed from the synthetic fiber, and the synthetic fiber comprises polyester or nylon (the material of Lo as applied to the modified cap of Cho is a material of blended polyester and wool with polyurethane elastic yarns woven in the weft direction; See Lo, Col. 5, lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 14, the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Hannon and Lo, as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein: the plurality of panels are formed from the combination of the synthetic fiber and the natural fiber, the synthetic fiber comprises polyester or nylon, and the natural fiber comprises one of cotton, rayon, wool, or a combination of cotton, rayon, and wool (the material of Lo as applied to the modified cap of Cho is a material of blended polyester and wool with polyurethane elastic yarns woven in the weft direction; See Lo, Col. 5, lines 7-8).
Claims 8 and 10, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Hannon and Lo, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2011/0070796 to Renzo (hereinafter, “Renzo”).
Regarding claim 8, although the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Hannon and Lo, as applied to claim 1 above) teaches a thickness of an adhesive portion of the seam sealing tape, the modified cap of Cho is silent to an overall thickness of the tape and, more specifically, is silent to the seam sealing tape has a thickness of 0.2 mm to 0.5 mm.
However, Renzo, in a related garment seaming art, is directed to a thermal adhesive tape for joining portions of garments (See Renzo, Figs. 1-2; abstract). More specifically, Renzo teaches the seam sealing tape has a thickness of 0.2 mm to 0.5 mm (See Renzo, Figs. 1-2; tape (1) has an overall thickness between 200 µm and 400 µm (i.e., between 0.2 mm and 0.4 mm); [0067]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to configure the seam sealing tape of the modified cap of Cho to have the overall thickness disclosed by Renzo so that a thickness of the entire tape may be reduced (See Renzo, [0067]).
Regarding claim 10, the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Hannon and Lo, as applied to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein: the seam sealing tape is formed of a mixed material of synthetic fiber and thermoplastic resin.
However, Renzo, in a related garment seaming art, is directed to a thermal adhesive tape for joining portions of garments (See Renzo, Figs. 1-2; abstract). More specifically, Renzo teaches wherein: the seam sealing tape is formed of a mixed material of synthetic fiber and thermoplastic resin (See Renzo, Fig. 1; tape (1) is multi-layer structure comprising polyester yarn and a hot melt resin; [0034]-[0044]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the composition of the seam sealing tape of the modified cap of Cho for that of the seam sealing tape disclosed by Renzo as the modification amounts to no more than a simple substitution of one known thermal adhesive seam sealing tape for another with nothing more than the reasonable expectation of one thermal adhesive seam sealing tape performing just as well as the other to yield predictable results, i.e., covering and joining fabric panels together.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 11, and 13-14, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, in view of US 2013/0255103 to Dua et al. (hereinafter, “Dua”), and in view of Lo.
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches a cap comprising: a crown portion, the crown portion having a plurality of panels connected together (See Cho, Figs. 1A-2; hat (100) having head receiving portion (101) formed by panels (110, 110’); Examiner notes that the term "portion" is very broad and merely means "a section or quantity within a larger thing; a part of a whole" (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), a brim portion attached to a lower end of the crown portion (See Cho, Fig. 1A; visor portion (103) attached to lower end of head receiving portion (101)), and a sweat absorbing portion attached to an inner lower end of the crown portion (See Cho, Fig. 1B; lower inner band of hat attached to inner lower end of head receiving portion (101)), wherein at least two adjacent panels among the plurality of panels are overlapped and joined by a stitching (See Cho, Figs. 1A-2; panels (110, 110’) are overlapped with one another and joined at intermediate location of respective sewing portions (113, 113’) by sewing line (111)), a seam sealing tape is attached to cover the stitching (See Cho, Figs. 1A-2; maintenance enhancing layer (107) which can be a tape is attached to cover stitched portion of the seam; tape (107) adhesively seals seam; [0032]-[0033], [0037]).
That said, Cho is silent to the panel being joined simultaneously with an ultrasonic bond as well as the stitching.
However, Dua, in a related garment seaming art, is directed to a seam system for garments, such as a hat, that includes both a stitching component and a thermally bonded component (See Dua, Figs. 1A-2; [0001; abstract]). More specifically, Dua teaches the panels also being joined with an ultrasonic bond (Dua, Fig. 38E; seam (603) is formed by heating and bonding ends of sheet layers (601, 602) together; bond can be formed by ultrasonic heating; [0142]-[0143]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to instead connect the panel edges of Cho using the stitched and ultrasonically bonded seam structure disclosed by Dua in order to provide a seam with strength greater than seams that only utilize one of stitching or thermal bonding (See Dua, [0135]).
As a result of the above modification, the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Dua, as discussed above) further teaches the panels being joined simultaneously by both the stitching and the ultrasonic bond (Examiner notes that being joined simultaneously is a product-by-process limitation; the resulting structure of the prior art, i.e., a resulting joining having both a stitching and an ultrasonic bond, meets the structural requirements of the claim limitation), the overlapping edge portions of the adjacent panels are trimmed and fused by the ultrasonic bonding (See Dua, Fig. 38E; formation of seam (603) both trims and fuses edges of adjacent panels), the stitching is disposed at a position inward of and spaced apart from the bonded edges (See Cho, Figs. 1A-2; sewing line (111) is formed at intermediate location spaced from the end, i.e., the edge, of each respective panel which are bonded in the modified cap of Cho as discussed above; Examiner notes that the term "edge" is structurally broad and has a definition of "the border, brim, or margin of a surface, object, etc" (Noun defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)), the seam sealing tape being attached to cover both the ultrasonic bond and the stitching (See Cho, Figs. 1A-2; maintenance enhancing layer (107) which can be a tape is attached and would cover both stitched and ultrasonic bonded portions of the seam in the modified cap of Cho as discussed above).
That said, the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Dua, as discussed above) is silent to the plurality of panels are formed of synthetic fiber, natural fiber, or a combination of the synthetic fiber and the natural fiber.
However, Lo, in a related headwear art, is directed to an adjustable headwear in the form of a cap or visor that is adjustable to fit wearers in a range of head sizes (See Lo, Figs. 1-7; abstract). More specifically, Lo teaches the plurality of panels are formed of synthetic fiber, natural fiber, or a combination of the synthetic fiber and the natural fiber (See Lo, Fig. 1; cap (10) may be formed from a material of blended polyester and wool with polyurethane elastic yarns woven in the weft direction; Col. 5, lines 7-8).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to form the modified cap of Cho from the material disclosed by Lo in order to form the hat from a stretchable material that would allow the hat to comfortably fit wearers in a range of head sizes (See Lo, abstract), and further since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (e.g., allowing a hat to comfortably fit wearers in a range of head sizes). See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 3, although the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Dua and Lo, as applied to claim 1 above) teaches the general conditions of the stitching being separated from the bonded edges of the adjacent panels by a distance, the modified cap of Cho is silent to wherein: the stitching is disposed at a distance of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm inward from the bonded edge.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to configure the separation distance so that the stitching and the edge of the overlapping ends are separated by a distance of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm depending on the size of the cap, panels, and desired size of the seam. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Examiner further notes the absence of a showing of criticality for the specific separation distance from Applicant’s disclosure. Indeed, Applicant’s disclosure does not compare the success of the claimed separation distance to that of another range of values to inform that the claimed range is critical.
Regarding claim 6, the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Dua and Lo, as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein: an adhesive is coated to one side of the seam sealing tape, and the seam sealing tape is attached to the ultrasonic bond and the stitching by the adhesive (tape (107) includes thermal adhesive layer (107a-1) which attaches to the ultrasonic bonded and sewn portions of the seam in the modified cap of Cho; See Cho, [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 7, the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Dua and Lo, as applied to claims 1 and 6 above) further teaches wherein: the seam sealing tape is attached to the ultrasonic bond and the stitching by thermal adhesion (tape (107) includes thermal adhesive layer (107a-1) which attaches to the ultrasonic bonded and sewn portions of the seam in the modified cap of Cho; See Cho, [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 11, the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Dua and Lo, as applied to claims 1 and 6 above) further teaches wherein: the adhesive has a thickness of 20 µm to 200 µm (thermal adhesive layer (107a-1) of tape can be 20-60 µm; See Cho, [0036]).
Regarding claim 13, the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Dua and Lo, as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein: the plurality of panels are formed from the synthetic fiber, and the synthetic fiber comprises polyester or nylon (the material of Lo as applied to the modified cap of Cho is a material of blended polyester and wool with polyurethane elastic yarns woven in the weft direction; See Lo, Col. 5, lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 14, the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Dua and Lo, as applied to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein: the plurality of panels are formed from the combination of the synthetic fiber and the natural fiber, the synthetic fiber comprises polyester or nylon, and the natural fiber comprises one of cotton, rayon, wool, or a combination of cotton, rayon, and wool (the material of Lo as applied to the modified cap of Cho is a material of blended polyester and wool with polyurethane elastic yarns woven in the weft direction; See Lo, Col. 5, lines 7-8).
Claims 8 and 10, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Dua and Lo, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Renzo.
Regarding claim 8, although the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Dua and Lo, as applied to claim 1 above) teaches a thickness of an adhesive portion of the seam sealing tape, the modified cap of Cho is silent to an overall thickness of the tape and, more specifically, is silent to the seam sealing tape has a thickness of 0.2 mm to 0.5 mm.
However, Renzo, in a related garment seaming art, is directed to a thermal adhesive tape for joining portions of garments (See Renzo, Figs. 1-2; abstract). More specifically, Renzo teaches the seam sealing tape has a thickness of 0.2 mm to 0.5 mm (See Renzo, Figs. 1-2; tape (1) has an overall thickness between 200 µm and 400 µm (i.e., between 0.2 mm and 0.4 mm); [0067]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to configure the seam sealing tape of the modified cap of Cho to have the overall thickness disclosed by Renzo so that a thickness of the entire tape may be reduced (See Renzo, [0067]).
Regarding claim 10, the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Dua and Lo, as applied to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein: the seam sealing tape is formed of a mixed material of synthetic fiber and thermoplastic resin.
However, Renzo, in a related garment seaming art, is directed to a thermal adhesive tape for joining portions of garments (See Renzo, Figs. 1-2; abstract). More specifically, Renzo teaches wherein: the seam sealing tape is formed of a mixed material of synthetic fiber and thermoplastic resin (See Renzo, Fig. 1; tape (1) is multi-layer structure comprising polyester yarn and a hot melt resin; [0034]-[0044]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the composition of the seam sealing tape of the modified cap of Cho for that of the seam sealing tape disclosed by Renzo as the modification amounts to no more than a simple substitution of one known thermal adhesive seam sealing tape for another with nothing more than the reasonable expectation of one thermal adhesive seam sealing tape performing just as well as the other to yield predictable results, i.e., covering and joining fabric panels together.
Claim 9, as best can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Dua and Lo, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hannon.
Regarding claim 9, although the tape of the modified cap of Cho (i.e., Cho in view of Dua and Lo, as applied to claim 1 above) is disclosed as having some width, the modified cap of Cho is silent to wherein: the seam sealing tape has a width of 10 mm to 20 mm.
However, Hannon, in a related garment seaming art, is directed to a seam system for connecting garment panels, such as in a hat garment, that includes an ultrasonic weld at panel edges spaced from another seam placed at an intermediate location on each panel (See Hannon, Figs. 1A-2; [0014]). More specifically, Hannon teaches wherein: the seam sealing tape has a width of 10 mm to 20 mm (See Hannon, Figs. 1A-1B; thermal seam tape reinforcement (5) has a width of not more than 15 mm; [0035]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to configure the seam sealing tape of the modified cap of Cho to have the width disclosed by Hannon in order to fully cover and seal the seam depending on the size of the seam. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Examiner further notes the absence of a showing of criticality for the specific seam sealing tape width from Applicant’s disclosure. Indeed, Applicant’s disclosure does not compare the success of the claimed seam sealing tape width to that of another range of values to inform that the claimed range is critical.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As an initial matter, Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments only appear directed to the rejections of the claims relying upon the Dua reference (US 2013/0255103). Applicant does not appear to make any arguments directed to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 11, and 13-14 over Cho in view of Hannon and Lo or the rejection of claims 8 and 10 over Cho in view of Hannon and Lo and further in view of Renzo.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Dua does not disclose stitching that is disposed inward of and spaced apart from the bonded edges, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument is based on Applicant’s description of the stitching strand 605 of Dua in Fig. 38E being embedded within a bonded region 603 itself and not apart from the bond. That said, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relied (i.e., a stitching that is set apart from a fused/bonded region) is not recited in the rejected claim. Indeed, the terms “edge” and “region” have different meanings. Examiner notes that the term "edge" is structurally broad and has a definition of "the border, brim, or margin of a surface, object, etc" (Noun defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com). Additionally, Examiner notes that the term "region" is very broad and merely means "any large, indefinite, and continuous part of a surface or space" (Defn. No. 1 of "Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com). Although the stitching of Dua in Fig. 38E may not be entirely spaced apart from an entirety of a bonded region of the joined panels, the stitching of Dua is spaced apart from the bonded edges of the joined panels, i.e., the border or margin of the joined and bonded panels (See annotated Fig. 38E of Dua below). That said, Dua alone is not relied upon for teaching this limitation. As discussed in the current grounds of rejection above, Cho in view of Hannon and separately Cho in view of Dua are each relied upon for teaching this limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
496
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 38E of Dua
In response to Applicant's apparent argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “a stitching line located outside the ultrasonic bond region”, “a stitching line that is offset inward by a discrete spacing”, and “a configuration where stitching and bonding are independently located and later covered together by a seam sealing tape”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLINTON T OSTRUP can be reached at (571) 272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732