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 .
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.
Claims 10, 16, 18, 20-23, 30-32, 34, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pizzacar (5,003,640).
Regarding claim 10, Pizzacar discloses a hat construction including front and rear sides with first and second straps (20', 18') on the rear side. Note Figure 7. Pizzacar also provides a loop portion fixedly attached to the adjustment strap (20'). Note column 3, lines 51-57. The loop portion attached to the strap is not arranged to maintain a position to maintain a position of the first strap relative to the second strap but is instead to be used to attach the adjustment plate (14') to the hat. The adjustment plate (14') is inherently capable of marking the location of a ball. Pizzacar does not specifically show the ball marker holder and the first strap being integrally formed as the two elements appear to be separable or attached as shown in figure 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the strap and ball marker integral as it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of separable elements would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See in re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Applicants specification further discloses that the ball marker may be formed separately and thereafter permanently attached to the strap or that the marker and cap strap may be integrally formed (paragraph 28). This supports examiner’s position that it is merely a matter of engineering design choice to make the elements integral.
Regarding claim 16, note Figure 7 showing the loop portion defining the ball marker holder as a panel. Regarding claim 18, note Figure 7 showing the first strap (20') permanently attached to the cap. Regarding claim 20, the adjustment plate (14') that is inherently capable of marking the location of a ball is shown in combination with the cap. Regarding claim 21, note the rejection of claim 10 as these claims recite similar limitations. Further, the rear surface of the first strap (20') defines a first section (e.g., rear section) of the first strap that is used to adjust the diameter of the cap by interaction with the front surface of the second strap (18'). Pizzacar also teaches that the rear surface of the ball marker holder is attached to the front surface of the first strap (20'). The front surface of the first strap (20') defines a second section (e.g., front section) of the first strap different than the first section. Regarding claim 22, the first section (e.g., rear section) includes the distal end of the first strap. Regarding claim 23, the second section (e.g., front section) of the first strap (20') is shown as including a central portion of the first strap. Regarding claim 24, note Figure 7 showing the loop portion defining the ball marker holder integrally formed on the first strap. Regarding claim 30, the adjustment plate (14') that is inherently capable of marking the location of a ball is shown in combination with the cap. Regarding claim 31, note the rejection of claim 1. The cap as taught by Pizzacar includes the first strap with the ball marker holder integrally formed thereon. The adjustment plate (14') that is inherently capable of marking the location of a ball is arranged to be received in the ball marker holder. Regarding claim 32, Pizzacar provide the second strap (18') that engages the first strap (20') to adjust and maintain the desired diameter of the cap. Regarding claim 34, the ball marker holder defined by the loop portion (28') defines a panel. Regarding claim 36, the first strap (20') is permanently attached to the cap as taught by Pizzacar.
Claims 17, 29, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pizzacar (US 5,003,640) in view of Regan (US 2018/0042325). Regarding claims 17, 29, and 35, Pizzacar teaches a hook and loop fastening means between the panel (14') and the loop portion (28'). Pizzacar lacks the teaching for the ball marker holder or ball marker to include a magnet or magnetic element as recited. Regan reveals that it is known in the art of hat attachments to provide an attachment panel (416) with either hook and loop fastening means or magnetic attachment means for removably attaching the panel to the hat. Note paragraphs [0004] and [0044] and Figure 4A. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the hook and loop fastening means between the panel (14') and the holder (20') as taught by Pizzacar with the magnetic attachment means of Regan in order to provide an alternative structure for attaching the panel to the hat of Pizzacar. Providing the panel (14') and the holder (20') of Pizzacar with the magnetic attachment means defines a ball marker holder (20') formed with a magnet or material having intrinsic magnetic properties and a ball marker panel (14') formed with a magnet or material having intrinsic magnetic properties.
Claims 19 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pizzacar. (US 2018/0042325) in view of Young (US 5,657,491). Regarding claims 19 and 37, Pizzacar lacks the teaching for the first strap to be removably attached to the cap as recited. Young reveals that it is known in the art of adjustable caps to provide the first strap (20) that is removably attached to the second strap (18). Young teaches that the removable strap enables greater comfort for the hat when it is worn backwards. Note column 1, lines 45-57. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the hat of Pizzacar with the removable strap of Young in order to provide the user with greater comfort should he wear the hat backwards.
Claims 10, 16-18, 20-23, 29-32, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elling (US 6,870,796) in view of KR 100569842. Regarding claim 10, Figure 1 of Elling discloses a wristband (10) having a timepiece (11). Further, Elling teaches that it is known to apply the timepiece from the wristband on the strap of a cap. Note Figure 7 and column 5, lines 23-34 disclosing a hat construction (100) including front and rear sides with first and second straps (121, 119) on the rear side. Elling also provides a timepiece (123) applied to the first strap (121) of the hat. It is noted that Elling provides a buckle (125) for maintaining the position of the first strap (121) relative to the second strap (119) and thus, the timepiece is not arranged to maintain a position of the first strap relative to the second strap. Note column 5, lines 40 and 41 stating that the watch can be slid onto the strap during production so that it is permanently attached to the strap. However, Elling provides a timepiece for the hat and thus, lacks the teaching for the ball marker holder as recited. KR '842 reveals that it is known in the art of functional wristbands to provide the wristband (40) with a ball marker holder (10, 20, 30) and ball marker (100). Note Figure 1. Given Elling's teaching that it is known to apply items located on a wristband on the strap of a hat and the teaching of KR '842 to use a ball marker on a wristband, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a ball marker to the first strap of the hat of Elling in order to permit the user to mark the location of a ball on a golf course while wearing the hat. The combination of Elling in view of KR '842 teaches that the straps and the ball marker holder are permanently attached together. Note column 5, lines 40 and 41 of Elling. Assuming arguendo that this does not read on integrally formed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the strap and ball marker integrally formed as it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of separable elements would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See in re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). Applicants specification further discloses that the ball marker may be formed separately and thereafter permanently attached to the strap or that the marker and cap strap may be integrally formed (paragraph 28). This supports examiner’s position that it is merely a matter of engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 16, note Figure 1 of KR '842 showing the ball marker holder (10, 20, 30) as a panel. Regarding claim 17, note the Abstract of KR '842 stating that the coupling plate (30) is made of a magnetic material to make magnetic contact with the ball mark.
Regarding claim 18, note column 5, lines 1-6 of Elling stating that the straps can be permanently sewn into place. Regarding claim 20, the combination of Elling in view of KR '842 teaches a ball marker in combination with the cap. Regarding claim 21, note the rejection of claim 10 as these claims recite similar limitations. Further, Elling teaches adjustment of the diameter of the cap by manipulating a first section of the first strap. Note Figures 5 and 7. Elling also provide a second section of the first strap comprising the timepiece, the second section being a different section of the first strap than the first section. Regarding claim 22, the first section includes the distal end of the first strap. Regarding claim 23, the second section of the first strap is shown as including a central portion of the first strap. Note Figures 5 and 7. Regarding claim 24, note Figures 5 and 7 showing the timepiece and the first strap integrally formed. Further, Elling particularly teaches that the watch (148) is permanently attached to the strap. Regarding claim 29, note the Abstract of KR '842 teaching a magnetic element for the ball marker holder. Regarding claim 30, the combination of Elling in view of KR '842 teaches a ball marker in combination with the cap. Regarding claim 31, note the rejection of claim 1. The cap as taught by the combination of Elling in view of KR '842 includes the first strap with the ball marker holder integrally formed thereon and the ball marker (100) arranged to be received in the ball marker holder (10, 20, 30).
Regarding claim 32, Elling provides the second strap (107) that engages the first strap (105) to adjust and maintain the desired diameter of the cap. Regarding claim 34, note Figure 1 of KR '842 showing the ball marker holder (10, 20, 30) as a panel. Regarding claim 35, note the Abstract of KR '842 stating that the coupling plate (30) is made of a magnetic material to make magnetic contact with the ball mark. Regarding claim 36, note column 5, lines 1-6 of Elling stating that the straps can be permanently sewn into place. 10.
Claims 19 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elling (US 6,870,796) in view of KR 100569842 and Young (US 5,657,491). Regarding claims 19 and 37, the combination of Elling in view of KR '842 lacks the teaching for the first strap to be removably attached to the cap as recited. Young reveals that it is known in the art of adjustable caps to provide the first strap (20) that is removably attached to the second strap (18). Young teaches that the removable strap enables greater comfort for the hat when it is worn backwards. Note column 1, lines 45-57. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the hat of Elling with the removable strap of Young in order to provide the user with greater comfort should he wear the hat backwards.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE LEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6am-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.
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.
/EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711