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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on September 2, 2025 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 10, 13, and 19 have been amended; claims 5 and 11 are canceled; and claims 4, 6, 12, 14-15, 17, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-20 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1-3, 7-10, 13, 16, and 18-19.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the headband (claims 2 and 13) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “124” (open crown apex).
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 1, reference number 122 is not pointing to any structure (Examiner notes that if 122 is removed, then 122 will not be in the drawings, but will still be in the specification and have the same issue as 124 as objected to above).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 7, 9, and 13 (and claims 2-3, 8, 10, 16, and 18-19 at least for depending from a rejected claim) 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.
Claims 1 and 13 are indefinite as each recites, “wherein the brim component can be magnetically snapped onto… wherein the back clasp component can be magnetically snapped onto…” and “wherein the brim component magnetically snaps onto… and wherein the back clasp component magnetically snaps onto…”, respectively. It is unclear what is meant by “magnetically snapped/snaps” and it is unknown if this means there are magnetic snaps or just simply magnetic structures. The specification recites “the terms “magnetic materials” and “magnets” and the like are to be interpreted broadly so as to include any corresponding pairs of materials that attach to one another via a magnetic force. For example, some embodiments may include a magnetized piece of material corresponding to a ferrous material. For the purposes of the embodiments disclosed herein, such materials may be interchanged with one another so long as a similar result is achieved, namely, so long as the brim component 104 and/or back clasp component 106 can be magnetically attached to the body component 102 as intended.” As such, there is no allusion to “snapping” and no specific structure is shown. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the limitations to mean, “wherein the brim component can be magnetically attached onto… wherein the back clasp component can be magnetically attached onto…” and “wherein the brim component magnetically attaches onto… and wherein the back clasp component magnetically attaches onto…”
Claim 7 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the brim component is removably attached to the body component….” However, as claim 1 recites, “wherein the brim component can be magnetically snapped onto the body component”, it is unclear if the reference of “removably attached” in claim 9 is referring to where the brim component can be “magnetically snapped” or to a different removable attachment.
Claim 9 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the back clasp component is removably attached to the body component….” However, as claim 1 recites, “wherein the back clasp component can be magnetically snapped onto the body component”, it is unclear if the reference of “removably attached” in claim 9 is referring to where the back clasp component can be “magnetically snapped” or to a different removable attachment.
Claim 13 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the brim component and the back clasp component are removably attached to a perimeter of the brim component”. First it is unclear how the brim component is removably attached to a perimeter of itself. Second, it is unclear how the back clasp component removably attaches to a perimeter of the brim component as they are placed at opposite sides of the body component. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean the brim component and the back clasp component are removably magnetically attached at the lower peripheral edge of the body component.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller (US 2019/0274385) in view of Davis (US 2020/0297057).
Regarding claim 1, Fuller discloses an interchangeable hat device (Figs. 1-3), the interchangeable hat device comprising: a body component (30); a brim component (32); and a back clasp component (34); wherein the brim component can be removably attached onto the body component (via 22/24); wherein the back clasp component can be removably attached onto the body component (via 36); wherein the brim component and the back clasp component can be removed and a different brim component or a different back clasp component can be attached to the body component to allow a user to change colors and styles of the interchangeable hat device (as the brim and back clasp are removable then the device and different brims and back clasps are capable of being attached, further see para. 0003-0004).
Fuller does not expressly disclose wherein the brim component and the back clasp component can be removably attached into the body component by being magnetically snapped.
Davis teaches a baseball cap with interchangeable parts wherein components can be magnetically snapped (see para. 0047 and para. 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the attachment means of Fuller with the attachment means, as taught by Davis, as a simple substitution of one well known attachment for another in order to yield the predictable result securely and removably fastening the components to the body component. Paras. 0007, 0037, 0040, and 0051 of Davis represents evidence that magnets were art-recognized equivalent structures for hook and loop fasteners. Therefore, because these two attachment means were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute magnets for hook and loop. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP 2143 B.
Examiner notes that italicized limitations in the prior art rejections are functional and do not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead require an ability to so perform and/or function. As the prior art discloses the structure of the hat device, there would be a reasonable expectation for the hat device to perform such functions, as Examiner has explained after each functional limitation.
Claim(s) 2-3, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Fuller and Davis, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moroy (US 2019/0289948).
Regarding claim 2, the modified hat of Fuller discloses wherein the body component (30) comprises a plurality of interconnected panels forming a crown with a crown apex, a lower peripheral edge (see annotated Fig. 3), a front face spanning from the lower peripheral edge to the crown apex (see annotated Fig. 2), and a rear opening defined by a gap in the lower peripheral edge opposite the front face of the crown (see annotated Fig. 3).
The modified hat of Fuller does not expressly disclose the lower peripheral edge forming a headband at a lower extremity of the crown.
Moroy teaches an interchangeable ballcap comprising the lower peripheral edge (35) forming a headband (112) at a lower extremity of the crown (34) (see Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a headband to the lower peripheral edge of the crown of the modified hat of Fuller as taught by Moroy in “so that [connection of the means of attachment interface] would not be visible on the outside of the hat (see para. 0030 of Moroy).
Regarding claim 3, the modified hat device of Fuller discloses wherein the gap in the lower peripheral edge (see annotated Fig. 3) is secured via the back clasp component (34) (via the plurality of snaps 36 as shown in Fig. 3), to make the body component adjustable on a user’s head (as utilizing the snaps allows changing the effective length of the back clasp component).
Regarding claim 7, the modified hat device of Fuller discloses wherein the brim component (32) is removably attached (via 22/24) to the body component (30), adjacent to the lower peripheral edge and front face (as seen in annotated Fig. 2), with the brim component extending away from the front face (as understood from Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, the modified hat device of Fuller discloses wherein the brim component (30) comprises an upper surface, a lower surface, an outer edge and an inner edge (see annotated Fig. 2), wherein the inner edge connects to the lower peripheral edge and front face of the body component (as seen in annotated Fig. 2 when 22 and 24 are attached together).
Regarding claim 9, the modified hat device of Fuller discloses wherein the back clasp component (34) is removably attached (via 36 as modified to be magnets by Davis) to the body component (30) adjacent to the lower peripheral edge and the rear opening (as shown in annotated Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Fuller and Davis, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reinhart (US 2015/0189938) and in view of Moroy.
Regarding claim 10, the modified hat of Fuller discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Fuller discloses “The object of the present invention is to provide a customizable cap that allows the user to interchange the bill, top button and even the adjustable strap for various colors and contrasting purposes” (para. 0003), but does not expressly disclose wherein the body component, the brim component and the back clasp component are manufactured as a kit with multiple instances of the interchangeable brim component and multiple instances of the back clasp component.
Reinhart teaches a ball cap wherein the body component (110), the brim component (130) are manufactured as a kit (see para. 0072) with multiple interchangeable brim components (as shown in Fig. 13).
Moroy teaches a ball cap wherein the body component (110), the back clasp component (140) are manufactured as a kit with multiple interchangeable back clasp components (as shown in Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the modified hat device of Fuller as a kit with interchangeable brims and back clasp components, as taught by Reinhart and Moroy in so that “Users may select their headwear to display a user's personality via choice of style, materials, colors, etc.” (see para. 0004 of Reinhart) and so that “a wearer may remove and replace the closure band with another closure band having a different color, logo, or material to show support for another sports team” (see Abstract of Moroy).
Claim(s) 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller, in view of Moroy, and in view of Davis.
Regarding claim 13, Fuller discloses an interchangeable hat device (Figs. 1-3), the interchangeable hat device comprising: a body component (30); a brim component (32); and a back clasp component (34); wherein the body component (30) comprises a plurality of interconnected panels forming a crown with a crown apex, a lower peripheral edge (see annotated Fig. 3), a front face spanning from the lower peripheral edge to the crown apex (see annotated Fig. 2), and a rear opening defined by a gap in the lower peripheral edge opposite the front face of the crown (see annotated Fig. 3); wherein the brim component (32) is removably attached (via 22/24) onto the body component (30), adjacent to the lower peripheral edge and front face (as seen in annotated Fig. 2), with the brim component extending away from the front face (as understood from Figs. 1-2); and wherein the back clasp component (34) is removably attached (via 36) onto the body component (30) adjacent to the lower peripheral edge and the rear opening (as shown in annotated Fig. 3); wherein the brim component and the back clasp component are removably attached a perimeter to the brim component (as best as can be understood, see 35 USC 112(b) rejections above, to mean the lower peripheral edge of the body component, see annotated Fig. 1); and further wherein the brim component and the back clasp component can be removed and a different brim component or a different back clasp component can be attached to the body component to allow a user to change colors and styles of the interchangeable hat device (as the brim and back clasp are removable then the device and different brims and back clasps are capable of being attached, further see para. 0003-0004).
Fuller does not expressly disclose the lower peripheral edge forming a headband at a lower extremity of the crown, and wherein the brim component and the back clasp component are removably attached onto the body component by magnetically snapping.
Moroy teaches an interchangeable ballcap comprising the lower peripheral edge (35) forming a headband (112) at a lower extremity of the crown (34) (see Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a headband to the lower peripheral edge of the crown of Fuller as taught by Moroy in “so that [connection of the means of attachment interface] would not be visible on the outside of the hat (see para. 0030 of Moroy).
The modified hat device of Fuller does not expressly disclose wherein the brim component and the back clasp component are removably attached onto the body component by magnetically snapping.
Davis teaches a baseball cap with interchangeable parts wherein components can be removable detached by magnetically snapping (see para. 0047 and para. 0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the attachment means of Fuller with the attachment means, as taught by Davis, as a simple substitution of one well known attachment for another in order to yield the predictable result securely and removably fastening the components to the body component. Paras. 0007, 0037, 0040, and 0051 of Davis represents evidence that magnets were art-recognized equivalent structures for hook and loop fasteners. Therefore, because these two attachment means were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute magnets for hook and loop. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. See MPEP 2143 B.
Regarding claim 16, the modified hat device of Fuller discloses wherein the back clasp component (34) can be removed from the body component (30) and utilized as a watch band (as the back clasp can be removed via magnets, see claim 13 above, it is capable of being used as a watch band as it could snap around a wear’s wrist).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Fuller, Moroy, and Davis, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Tapia (US 5070545).
Regarding claim 18, the modified hat device of Fuller discloses all the limitations of claim 13 above, but does not expressly disclose further comprising a plurality of indicia.
Tapia teaches an interchangeable hat device comprising a plurality of indicia (16/18 emblem patches/insignia members).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a plurality of indicia to the modified hat device of Fuller, as taught by Tapia, “so that one cap assembly can be modified to identify with two or more athletic teams” (see Abstract of Tapia). Examiner notes that “indicia” in the following claim is a limitation of printed matter. Once it is determined that the limitation is directed to printed matter, Examiner must then determine if the matter is functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate, and only if the answer is ‘no’ is the printed matter owed no patentable weight. In this case, where the product (shirt/hat/jacket) merely serves as a support for printed matter, and no functional relationship exists since there is no new relation of printed matter to physical structure. The claim(s) as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product and the printed matter is given no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Fuller, Moroy, and Davis, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Reinhart.
Regarding claim 19, the modified hat of Fuller discloses all the limitations of claim 13 above, and Fuller discloses “The object of the present invention is to provide a customizable cap that allows the user to interchange the bill, top button and even the adjustable strap for various colors and contrasting purposes” (para. 0003), but does not expressly disclose wherein the body component, the brim component and the back clasp component are manufactured as a kit with multiple instances of the interchangeable brim component and multiple instances of the back clasp component.
Reinhart teaches a ball cap wherein the body component (110), the brim component (130) are manufactured as a kit (see para. 0072) with multiple interchangeable brim components (as shown in Fig. 13).
Moroy teaches a ball cap wherein the body component (110), the back clasp component (140) are manufactured as a kit with multiple interchangeable back clasp components (as shown in Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the modified hat device of Fuller as a kit with interchangeable brims and back clasp components, as taught by Reinhart and Moroy in so that “Users may select their headwear to display a user's personality via choice of style, materials, colors, etc.” (see para. 0004 of Reinhart) and so that “a wearer may remove and replace the closure band with another closure band having a different color, logo, or material to show support for another sports team” (see Abstract of Moroy).
PNG
media_image1.png
708
625
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 (Fuller)
PNG
media_image2.png
795
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 (Fuller)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed September 2, 2025, with respect to the 35 USC 102 and 103 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0673. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732