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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/30/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 10, “an as-worn configuration” is read as “the as-worn configuration”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “anchoring device” in claims 1-6 and 8-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6, 10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kronenberger (US 2149121).
Regarding claim 1, Kronenberger teaches a headwear article (fig. 1) comprising:
a first layer (fig. 5, inner band 13) forming a sweat band of the headwear article (fig. 5, the inner band 13 at the edge of the cap and at the inner surface of the cap, the inner band together with bottom portion of the lining 14 is configured to be the sweat band of the cap), the first layer having a first surface and a second surface;
a first anchoring device (fig. 2, fastener 19) coupled to the first surface of the first layer (13); and
a second layer (fig. 1, segments 11) forming a head covering portion, wherein the second layer is coupled to the first layer at a first perimeter edge extending along a circumference of the second layer (fig. 3), the second layer having an inner surface and an outer surface, wherein the second layer extends exterior to and overlaps with the first layer (fig. 3), such that the first surface of the first layer is in a face-sharing relationship with the inner surface of the second layer when the headwear article is in an as-worn configuration (fig. 3), the second layer further comprising:
a first slit (fig. 2, opening 20) forming a first passageway for the first anchoring device through the second layer (fig. 2), wherein the first anchoring device is aligned with the first slit in both an anchoring configuration and a hidden configuration (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Kronenberger teaches the first anchoring device is configured to align with an occipital bone and/or parietal bone of a wearer’s head, when the headwear article is in the as-worn configuration (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Kronenberger teaches a second anchoring device (fastener 19 on the other side of the cap) coupled to the first surface of the first layer (13).
Regarding claim 4, Kronenberger teaches a second slit (fig. 2, opening 20 on the other side of the cap) aligned with the second anchoring device (19) coupled to the first surface, the second slit forming a second passageway for the second anchoring device through the second layer (fig. 2), wherein the second anchoring device is aligned with the second slit in both a second anchoring configuration and a second hidden configuration of the second anchoring device (fig. 2), wherein the first slit is in alignment with a first seam (fig. 2, seam 21) and second slit is in alignment with a second seam (fig. 2, seam 21 on the other side) of one or more seams, the first seam and the second seam extending orthogonal to the first perimeter edge coupling the first layer and the second layer (fig. 2), and wherein the first seam and the second seam are configured to align with temporal bone portions of a wearer’s head when the headwear article is in an as-worn configuration (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Kronenberger teaches the first anchoring device is configured to move from a hidden state (when the earmuff is not used) to an anchoring state (when the earmuff is detached to the cap) when the first anchoring device is extended through the firs slit of the second layer (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Kronenberger teaches the first anchoring device, when in the anchoring configuration, is configured to engage one or more elastic ear loops of a face mask (because “one or more elastic ear loops of a face mask” is an intended use of the invention, in this case, the fastener 19 is capable of engaging to fastener 29 attached to one or more elastic ear loops of a face mask).
Regarding claim 10, Kronenberger teaches the first anchoring device and the second anchoring device are configured to engage one or more elastic ear loops of a face mask when in the anchoring configuration and the second anchoring configuration, respectively (because “one or more elastic ear loops of a face mask” is an intended use of the invention, in this case, the fastener 19 is capable of engaging to fastener 29 attached to one or more elastic ear loops of a face mask).
Regarding claim 12, Kronenberger teaches the headwear article is one of a cap or a hat (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Kronenberger teaches a visor (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Kronenberger teaches the second layer is comprised of a plurality of panels (fig. 1, panels 11) joined by a plurality of seams (fig. 2, seams 21), wherein the first slit is in alignment with a first seam of the plurality of seams extending orthogonal to the first perimeter edge coupling the first layer and the second layer (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Kronenberger teaches a headwear article comprising:
a first layer (fig. 5, inner band 13) having a first surface and a second surface;
a first anchoring device (fig. 2, fastener 19) coupled to the first surface of the first layer, the first anchoring device being configured to move from a hidden configuration to an anchoring configuration (figs. 2-3); and
a second layer (fig. 1, segments 11) forming a body of the headwear article, wherein the second layer is coupled to the first layer at a first perimeter edge of the second layer (fig. 3), the second layer having an inner surface and an outer surface, wherein the second layer extends exterior to and overlays an entirety of the first surface of the first layer (fig. 3) such that the first surface of the first layer is in a face-sharing relationship with the inner surface of the second layer when the headwear article is in an as-worn configuration (fig. 3), the second layer further comprising:
a first slit (fig. 2, opening 20) forming a first passageway for the first anchoring device through the second layer,
wherein the first anchoring device is aligned with the first slit in both the hidden configuration and the anchoring configuration (fig. 2),
wherein when the first anchoring device is in the hidden configuration, the first anchoring device is located between the first layer and the second layer (fig. 3), and
wherein when the first anchoring device is in the anchoring configuration, the first anchoring device is positioned external to the outer surface of the second layer through the first slit (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Kronenberger teaches the first anchoring device is configured to align with an occipital bone and/or parietal bone of a wearer’s head, when the headwear article is in the as-worn configuration (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Kronenberger teaches a second anchoring device (fastener 19 on the other side of the cap) coupled to the first surface of the first layer (13).
Regarding claim 18, Kronenberger teaches a second slit (fig. 2, opening 20 on the other side of the cap), wherein the first slit is in alignment with a first seam (fig. 2, seam 21) and second slit is in alignment with a second seam (fig. 2, seam 21 on the other side) of one or more seams extending orthogonal to the first perimeter edge coupling the first layer and the second layer (fig. 2), and wherein the first seam and the second seam are configured to align with temporal bone portions of a wearer’s head when the headwear article is in an as-worn configuration (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Kronenberger teaches the second anchoring device is configured to move from a second hidden configuration (fig. 3) to a second anchoring configuration of the second anchoring device when the second anchoring device is extended through the second slit of the second layer (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Kronenberger teaches a headwear article comprising:
an anchoring device (fig. 2, fastener 19) joined to a first surface of a first layer (fig. 2, inner band 13) of the headwear article, wherein the anchoring device is adapted to reversibly move from a hidden configuration (fig. 3) to an anchoring configuration (fig. 2) and wherein the anchoring device is configured to engage at least one ear loop of a face mask when the anchoring device is in the anchoring configuration (because “one or more elastic ear loops of a face mask” is an intended use of the invention, in this case, the fastener 19 is capable of engaging to fastener 29 attached to one or more elastic ear loops of a face mask); and
a head covering portion (fig. 1, segments 11) wherein the head covering portion is coupled to the first layer around a first perimeter edge (fig. 3) extending along a circumference of the head covering portion, wherein the head covering portion overlays an entirety of the first surface of the first layer (fig. 3), wherein the head covering portion comprises a slit (fig. 2, opening 20) aligned with the anchoring device in both the hidden configuration and the anchoring configuration, wherein the slit forms a passageway for the anchoring device through the head covering portion when the anchoring device reversibly moves from the hidden configuration to the anchoring configuration (fig. 2).
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronenberger (US 2149121), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McNeil (US 1356542).
Regarding claim 7, Kronenberger does not teach the first anchoring device is secured to the first surface of the first layer by threading a thread through one or more openings of the first anchoring device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, McNeil teaches an anchoring device (fig. 4, button 15) is secured to a surface of a layer by threading a thread through one or more openings of the anchoring device (fig. 4, button 15).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first anchoring device of Kronenberger with a button as suggested by McNeil for the benefit of detachably fastening the earmuff to the cap. Using a known method as a button instead of snap fastener for fastening is well known in the art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kronenberger (US 2149121), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Powell (US 2022/0007759).
Regarding claim 11, Kronenberger does not teach an adjustable closure mechanism for adjusting a fit of the headwear article on a wearer’s head when the headwear article is in the as-worn configuration.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Powell teaches an adjustable closure mechanism for adjusting a fit of the headwear article on a wearer’s head when the headwear article is in the as-worn configuration (fig. 10, para. [0068], a mask adjuster 720 adjusts a head opening between the first and second sizes).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Kronenberger with an adjustable closure mechanism as taught by Powell for the benefit of providing fit for different user’s head sizes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 04/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C 112 (b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection to the claims has been withdrawn due to the applicant amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, dated 04/30/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 102 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM-4:30 PM 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, 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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights