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 26, 2025 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 5, 7, 10-11, 13, and 19 have been amended; and claims 2-4, 6, 8-9, 14-16, 18, and 20 are canceled. Accordingly, claims 1, 5, 7, 10-13, 17, and 19 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1, 5, 7, 10-13, 17, and 19.
Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed May 20, 2025, are hereby withdrawn:
Objections to the specification;
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112(d).
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
A third half of the plurality of halves (claims 1 and 13).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, 14, and 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 13 should recite, “wherein a third half of the plurality of halves [[can]] is configured to replace one of the first two halves.”
Claim 13 should recite, “wherein the body component further comprises a crown section and a brim component; wherein an adjustable back strap is removably attached to a back of the body component over a rear opening defined by a gap in a lower peripheral edge, to adjust a fit of the interchangeable hat device” (note a semicolon has been added).
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5, 7, and 13 (and claims 10-12, 17, and 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 is indefinite as each recites, “An interchangeable hat device comprising… a body component comprising a plurality of halves… wherein a third half of the plurality of halves can replace one of the first two halves.” First, as a half is one out of two, is it is unclear how a device can have more than two halves. Further if three halves are required to meet the claim, it is unclear how the claimed invention is a completed device as one would not be wearing all three halves, and it appears that the claimed invention is a kit not a device.
Claims 1 and 13 are indefinite as each recites, “wherein a first two of the plurality of halves of the body component can be secured together; wherein the two halves are secured together via a zipper”. As the limitation “the two halves” lacks antecedent basis in the it is unclear what “the two halves” is referring to as it may be referring to the “first two of the plurality of halves”, any two of the plurality of halves, or an entirely different structure. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to be referring to the first two of the plurality of halves.
Claims 1 and 13 are indefinite as each recites, “wherein a first two of the plurality of halves of the body component can be secured together… wherein the two halves are secured together via a zipper”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1 and 13 each recites the broad recitation “wherein a first two of the plurality of halves of the body component can be secured together”, and the claim also recites “wherein the two halves are secured together via a zipper” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 5 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein a brim component of the body component is secured at a lower peripheral edge of a front face of the body component and extends outward from the front face, wherein the brim component is rigid.” As the body component has at least three halves, but it appears only two are attached to each other at a given time, it is unclear if the brim component is separate from the three halves or if it included in each of the three halves. Further, as the brim component is part of the body component, it is unclear how it extends from a front face of the body component.
Claims 7 and 13 are indefinite as each recites, “wherein the zipper is provided at an edge of a first half of the two halves of the body component and an edge of a second half of the two halves of the body component.” It is unclear if “a first half” and “a second half” is referring to one of the first two plurality of halves and a second one of the first two plurality of halves or if each is referring to a half of a half, i.e. a quarter. Further, it is unclear if there is a zipper at the edge of the first half and another zipper at the edge of the second half, or if there is one zipper where a first part is at the edge of the one half and a second part is at the edge of the second half. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to recite, “wherein a first part of the zipper is provided at an edge of a first [[half]] one of the first two halves of the plurality of halves of the body component and a second part of the zipper is provided at an edge of a second [[half]] one of the first two halves of the plurality of halves of the body component.”
Claim 13 is indefinite as it recites, “a body component comprising a plurality of halves; wherein a first two of the plurality of halves of the body component can be secured together; wherein the body component further comprises a crown section and a brim component”. It is unclear how the body component can comprise a plurality of halves and further comprise a crown second and a brim component. As such there would be at least two halves of the body component, and then a crown and a brim. However, based on the drawings, it appears the crown and the brim components are separated into a plurality of halves. Therefore the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 13 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the brim component is secured at the lower peripheral edge of the front face and extends outward from the front face”. As the limitation “the lower peripheral edge of the front face” lacks antecedent basis, it is unclear what structure is being referring to as it could be the brim component, the body component, or any one or all of the plurality of halves. Based on the specification, it appears this should be referring to the crown or the body component. However, the body component has at least three halves, but it appears only two are attached to each other at a given time, it is unclear if the brim component is separate from the three halves or if it included in each of the three halves. Further, as the brim component is part of the body component, it is unclear how it extends from a front face of the body component.
Claim 13 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein a first two of the plurality of halves of the body component can be secured together; wherein the body component further comprises a crown section and a brim component wherein an adjustable back strap is removably attached to a back of the body component over a rear opening defined by a gap in a lower peripheral edge, to adjust a fit of the interchangeable hat device; wherein the brim component is secured at the lower peripheral edge of the front face and extends outward from the front face, wherein the brim component is rigid; wherein a first two of the plurality of halves of the body component can be secured together, wherein the two halves are secured together via a zipper”. It is unclear if the bolded limitation is an accidental repeat of a limitation if each is referring to a different first two of the plurality of halves. It is then further unclear what “the two halves” is referring to. Examiner has interpreted the second instance of “wherein a first two of the plurality of halves of the body component can be secured together” to be an accidentally repeated limitation and respectfully suggests deleting it from the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kovalov (US 2012/0174288).
Regarding claim 1, Kovalov discloses an interchangeable hat device (Figs. 1-4) the interchangeable hat device comprising: a body component (1, 2, 4, 5) comprising a plurality of halves (4, 5, where there is additional halves such that a first half is white, and there are 10 opposite halves made of different colors, see para. 0049); wherein a first two of the plurality of halves (4, 5) of the body component can be secured together (via zipper 3); wherein the two halves are secured together via a zipper (3, see para. 0039); and wherein a third half of the plurality of halves (any one of the 10 opposite halves made of different colors can be the third half) can replace one of the first two halves (as understood from para. 0049).
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 device, there would be a reasonable expectation for the device to perform such functions, as Examiner has explained after each functional limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Kovalov discloses wherein a brim component (2) of the body component is secured at a lower peripheral edge of a front face and extends outward from the front face (as seen in Figs. 1-4), where the brim component is rigid (see paras. 0032 where the brim can be cardboard or plastic material, and therefore has at least some rigidity).
Regarding claim 7, Kovalov discloses wherein the zipper (3) is provided at an edge of a first half (4) of the two halves of the body component and an edge of a second half (5) of the two halves of the body component (as can be seen in Fig. 2, the zipper is at the inner edge of each of the halves).
Regarding claim 10, Kovalov discloses wherein the zipper (3) comprises a slider (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Kovalov discloses wherein the zipper (3) compromises a pull component (6).
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovalov, as applied to claims 1, 5, 7, and 10-11 above, and further in view of Moroy (US 2019/0289948).
Regarding claim 12, Kovalov discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 5, 7, and 10-11 above, but does not expressly disclose further comprising an adjustable back strap on a back of the body component to adjust a fit of the interchangeable hat device.
Moroy teaches a baseball cap comprising an adjustable back strap (140) on a back of the body component (as the backstrap is on the back of the body component as seen in Fig. 1) to adjust a fit of the interchangeable hat device (as the effective length of the strap can be adjusted to adjust the fit, see para. 0029).
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 an adjustable band to a back of the body component of Kovalov, as taught by Moroy, so that crown circumference is adjustable "by adjusting the length [of the adjustable band across the opening] to accommodate the circumference of a wearer's head" (para. 0029) thereby improving the fit of the hat for a larger group of consumers.
Claim(s) 13, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovalov in view of Moroy.
Regarding claim 13, Kovalov discloses an interchangeable hat device (Figs. 1-4) the interchangeable hat device comprising: a body component (1, 2, 4, 5) comprising a plurality of halves (4, 5, where there is additional halves such that a first half is white, and there are 10 opposite halves made of different colors, see para. 0049); wherein a first two of the plurality of halves (4, 5) of the body component can be secured together (via zipper 3); wherein the body component further comprises a crown section (1) and a brim component (2); wherein the brim component (2) is secured at the lower peripheral edge of the front face and extends outward from the front face (as seen in Figs. 1-4, the brim component extends outwear from the front face of the crown section at the lower peripheral edge), wherein the brim component is rigid (see paras. 0032 where the brim can be cardboard or plastic material, and therefore has at least some rigidity); wherein a first two of the plurality of halves (4, 5) of the body component can be secured together (via zipper 3); wherein the two halves are secured together via a zipper (3, see para. 0039); wherein the zipper (3) is provided at an edge of a first half (4) of the two halves of the body component and an edge of a second half (5) of the two halves of the body component (as can be seen in Fig. 2, the zipper is at the inner edge of each of the halves); and wherein a third half of the plurality of halves (any one of the 10 opposite halves made of different colors can be the third half) can replace one of the first two halves (as understood from para. 0049).
Kovalov does not expressly disclose wherein an adjustable back strap removably attached to a back of the body component over a rear opening defined by a gap in a lower peripheral edge, to adjust a fit of the interchangeable hat device.
Moroy teaches a baseball cap comprising an adjustable back strap (140) removably attached (via VELCRO 146/156/130/132) to a back of the body component (as can be seen in Fig. 1 of Moroy) over a rear opening (110) defined by a gap in a lower peripheral edge (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 2), to adjust a fit of the interchangeable hat device (as the effective length of the strap can be adjusted to adjust the fit, see para. 0029 of Moroy).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a rear opening with an adjustable band in the device of Kovalov, as taught by Moroy, so that crown circumference is adjustable “by adjusting the length [of the adjustable band across the opening] to accommodate the circumference of a wearer's head” (para. 0029) thereby improving the fit of the hat for a larger group of consumers.
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Kovalov discloses further comprising a plurality of indicia (see Fig. 2 where there is indicia of “westwood” as well as indicia of stripes next to “westwood”, further see at least para. 0049 where various indicia is disclosed; and para. 0009 where there can be logos).
Regarding claim 19, the modified device of Kovalov discloses wherein the zipper (3) comprises a slider (see annotated Fig. 4) and a pull component (6) for moving the zipper up and down (as is the normal operation of a pull component).
PNG
media_image1.png
353
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 (Kovalov)
PNG
media_image2.png
404
224
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 (Kovalov)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed September 26, 2025, with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejections of claims 1-3 and the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 4-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. 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