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 .
Status of Claims
In response to the application filed 22 April 2024, claims 1-20 are presented for examination on the merits.
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 structures must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Claim 1, “manual adjustment mechanism”;
Claim 17, “wherein the bearing system includes a plurality of radially interspaced
beads positioned within a bearing channel”;
Claim 18, “wherein the crown may include one or more decorative elements”;
Claim 19, “wherein the brim may include one or more decorative elements”.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 17 recites the following limitation: “wherein the bearing system includes a plurality of radially interspaced beads positioned within a bearing channel”. After a complete review of Applicant’s instant specification, such limitation lacks antecedent basis from the instant written specification.
Claim 18 recites the following limitation: “wherein the crown may include one or more decorative elements”. After a complete review of Applicant’s instant specification, such limitation lacks antecedent basis from the instant written specification.
Claim 19 recites the following limitation: “wherein the brim may include one or more decorative elements”. After a complete review of Applicant’s instant specification, such limitation lacks antecedent basis from the instant written specification.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 9: the recitation “A hat with a rotatable brim, comprising: a hat including a crown forming the top porting of the hat” should be amended to read “A hat with a rotatable brim, comprising: a top portion of the hat”;
Claim 9, the recitation “the rotating system including” should be amended to read “the rotating mechanism including”.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 limitations are: “bearing system”, “rotating mechanism”, “manual adjustment mechanism”, and “locking mechanism”. Claim 1 line 4 sets forth the term “bearing system”, which invoked 112f, with the corresponding/equivalent structure in para. 26 of the specification disclosing the bearing system as the rotating mechanism 400, and the bearing system includes channel 401 to accept the brim 105. Claim 1 line 5 sets forth the term “rotating mechanism”, which invoked 112f, with the corresponding/equivalent structure in para. 26 of the specification disclosing the rotating mechanism as the bearing system 103, and the bearing system includes channel 401 to accept the brim 105. Claim 1 line 6 sets forth the term “manual adjustment mechanism”, which invoked 112f, with the corresponding/equivalent structure in para. 4 of the specification disclosing the rotating mechanism enables smooth and continuous rotation of the brim, and the manual adjustment mechanism allows the user to manually rotate the brim (Examiner interprets the manual adjustment mechanism as the rotating mechanism). Claim 6 line 1 sets forth the term “locking mechanism”, which invoked 112f, with the corresponding/equivalent structure in para. 24 of the specification disclosing the locking mechanism as one or more clips 201 on the outer side 203 of brim 105.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the bearing system includes a plurality of radially interspaced beads positioned within a bearing channel”. After a full review of applicant’s disclosure, it appears there is no support for such claim limitations. For these reasons, the claim limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the crown may include one or more decorative elements”. After a full review of applicant’s disclosure, it appears there is no support for such claim limitations. For these reasons, the claim limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the brim may include one or more decorative elements”. After a full review of applicant’s disclosure, it appears there is no support for such claim limitations. For these reasons, the claim limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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, regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected as being indefinite or failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the meaning(s) and structure(s) of “a bearing system”, “a rotating mechanism”, and “a manual adjustment mechanism”. After a full review of Applicant’s disclosure in para. 26, it appears the bearing system is the rotating mechanism, which includes channel 401 to accept the brim 105. Applicant is respectfully advised to clarify how/if the bearing system is a different structure than the rotating mechanism. Further, para. 4 of Applicant’s disclosure discloses “A rotating mechanism enables smooth and continuous rotation of the brim. A manual adjustment mechanism allows the user to manually rotate the brim”, but it is unclear if the manual adjustment mechanism is the same structure as the rotating mechanism, or if the manual adjustment mechanism is a different structure than the rotating mechanism. Applicant is advised to clarify where the manual adjustment mechanism exists in the claimed invention, and how the manual adjustment mechanism is a different structure than the rotating mechanism. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the “bearing system” and the “manual adjustment mechanism” as the “rotating mechanism”. Claim 1 is rejected as best understood by Examiner.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected as being indefinite or failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the meaning(s) of “wherein the rotating mechanism is frictionless”. After a full review of Applicant’s disclosure in para. 4, it is unclear how the rotating mechanism is frictionless, or moves the rotation of the brim about the crown of the hat without the presence of friction. Applicant is respectfully advised to clarify how the rotating mechanism is frictionless because structures on Earth interacting with one another experience friction to some degree. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the “wherein the rotating mechanism is frictionless” as “wherein the rotating mechanism provides rotation of the brim”. Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected as best understood by Examiner.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 contain an abbreviation, “UV”, which renders the claim scope uncertain since the abbreviation cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. In the present case, the identification/description of the abbreviation is indefinite. Applicant is respectfully advised to clarify/define in the claim limitation which material is abbreviated as UV. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets UV as ultraviolet. Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected as best understood.
Claim 14 is rejected as being indefinite or failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the structure of “further comprising a locking mechanism”. After a full review of Applicant’s disclosure it is unclear whether there is a second locking mechanism that is different than the locking mechanism claimed in claim 9, from which claim 14 depends upon. Applicant is respectfully advised to the number of locking mechanisms, or if the locking mechanism of claim 14 is the same structure as the locking mechanism claimed in claim 9. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the locking mechanism of claim 14 as the same locking mechanism as presented in claim 9. Claim 14 is rejected as best understood by Examiner.
Claim 17 is rejected as being indefinite or failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the structure of “wherein the bearing system includes a plurality of radially interspaced beads positioned within a bearing channel”. After a full review of Applicant’s disclosure it is unclear whether the radially interspaced “beads” were intended to be claimed as recesses 409 as shown in Fig. 4. Applicant is respectfully advised clarify where the plurality of radially interspaced beads exist in the claimed invention. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the radially interspaced beads as the recesses 409 of the bearing system 103, see Fig. 4. Claim 17 is rejected as best understood by Examiner.
Claim 18 is rejected as being indefinite or failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim “wherein the crown may include one or more decorative elements” because the use of “may” renders the recitation unclear. Applicant is respectfully advised to clarify whether the crown includes one or more decorative elements or not. For the purposes of examination, Examiner interprets the crown includes one or more decorative elements. Claim 18 is rejected as best understood by Examiner.
Claim 19 is rejected as being indefinite or failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim “wherein the brim may include one or more decorative elements” because the use of “may” renders the recitation unclear. Applicant is respectfully advised to clarify whether the brim includes one or more decorative elements or not. For the purposes of examination, Examiner interprets the brim includes one or more decorative elements. Claim 19 is rejected as best understood by Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-6, 9-14, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mobley (US 5,715,534 A).
Regarding claim 1, insofar as is definite, Mobley teaches a hat (10; Figs. 1-4) with a rotatable brim (12; at least abstract), comprising:
a hat (10) including a crown (11, 13) forming the top porting of the hat (Figs. 1 & 3-4, where a top portion of 11 is above 12), the crown configured to cover and fit a head of a user (Fig. 1; col. 1 lines 58-62);
a bearing system (16, top and bottom 22, and a channel formed by top and bottom 22 and 16 as shown in Figs. 3-4) permitting the rotatable connection between a brim (Figs. 3-4) and the crown (Figs. 3-4; col. 5 lines 39-45);
a rotating mechanism (16, top and bottom 22, and a channel formed by top and bottom 22 and 16 as shown in Figs. 3-4, as best understood) to enable smooth and continuous rotation of the brim (col. 4 lines 19-22; It is noted that “to enable smooth and continuous rotation of the brim” is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function; Mobley discloses the structure as claimed and therefore would have a reasonable expectation of performing such function);
and a manual adjustment mechanism (16, top and bottom 22, and a channel formed by top and bottom 22 and 16 as shown in Figs. 3-4, as best understood) to allow the user to manually rotate the brim (col. 1 lines 5-10; It is noted that “to allow the user to manually rotate the brim” is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function; Mobley discloses the structure as claimed and therefore would have a reasonable expectation of performing such function).
Regarding claim 2, insofar as is definite, Mobley teaches the hat with a rotatable brim of Claim 1, wherein the rotating mechanism is frictionless (col. 4 lines 19-22, as best understood).
Regarding claim 3, Mobley teaches the hat with a rotatable brim of Claim 1, wherein the rotating mechanism provides 360-degree rotation of the brim (abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Mobley teaches the hat with a rotatable brim of Claim 1, wherein the rotating mechanism provides the user with adjustable shading (col. 2 lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 5, Mobley teaches the hat with a rotatable brim of Claim 1, wherein the rotating mechanism provides the user with adjustable styling (col. 2 lines 1-8, “for self-expression”, and therefore, teaches “provides the user with adjustable styling”).
Regarding claim 6, Mobley teaches the hat with a rotatable brim of Claim 1, further comprising a locking mechanism (17; Fig. 3) to secure the brim in a fixed position (Fig. 3 shows 17 and 16 as engaged/assembled, and therefore, is “a fixed position”).
Regarding claim 9, insofar as is definite, Mobley teaches a hat (10) with a rotatable brim (12; at least abstract), comprising:
a hat (10) including a crown (11, 13) forming the top porting of the hat (Figs. 1 & 3-4, where a top portion of 11 is above 12), the crown configured to cover and fit a head of a user (Fig. 1; col. 1 lines 58-62);
a bearing system (16; Figs. 3-4) permitting the rotatable connection between a brim (Figs. 3-4) and the crown (Figs. 3-4; col. 5 lines 39-45);
a rotating mechanism (16; Figs. 3-4, as best understood) to enable smooth and continuous rotation of the brim (col. 4 lines 19-22; It is noted that “to enable smooth and continuous rotation of the brim” is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function; Mobley discloses the structure as claimed and therefore would have a reasonable expectation of performing such function), the rotating system including a groove (top and bottom 22) to interface with a notch (24) provided on the brim to guide the rotation of the brim (Fig. 3);
a locking mechanism (17) comprised of at least one clip (25) to lockingly engage with the bearing system (Figs. 3-6; col. 5 lines 61-67 and col. 6 lines 1-6);
and a manual adjustment mechanism (16; Figs. 3-4, as best understood) to allow the user to manually rotate the brim and to manually lock the brim (col. 1 lines 5-10; It is noted that “to allow the user to manually rotate the brim and to manually lock the brim” is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function; Mobley discloses the structure as claimed and therefore would have a reasonable expectation of performing such function).
Regarding claim 10, insofar as is definite, Mobley teaches the hat with a rotatable brim of Claim 9, wherein the rotating mechanism is frictionless (col. 4 lines 19-22, as best understood).
Regarding claim 11, Mobley teaches the hat with a rotatable brim of Claim 10, wherein the rotating mechanism provides 360-degree rotation of the brim (abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Mobley teaches the hat with a rotatable brim of Claim 11, wherein the rotating mechanism provides the user with adjustable shading (col. 2 lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 13, Mobley teaches the hat with a rotatable brim of Claim 12, wherein the rotating mechanism provides the user with adjustable styling (col. 2 lines 1-8, “for self-expression”, and therefore, teaches “provides the user with adjustable styling”).
Regarding claim 14, insofar as is definite, Mobley teaches the hat with a rotatable brim of Claim 13, further comprising a locking mechanism (17; Fig. 3) to secure the brim in a fixed position (Fig. 3 shows 17 and 16 as engaged/assembled, and therefore, is “a fixed position”).
Regarding claim 17, Mobley teaches the hat with a rotatable brim of Claim 16, wherein the bearing system includes a plurality of radially interspaced beads (recesses of top and bottom 22 as shown in Figs. 3-4 & 6, where the recesses of top and bottom 22 have recesses within 16, as best understood) positioned within a bearing channel (Figs. 3-4 shows “a bearing channel” as the channel formed by top and bottom 22 and 16).
Regarding claim 18, insofar as is definite, Mobley teaches the hat with a rotatable brim of Claim 17, wherein the crown may include one or more decorative elements (col. 2 lines 40-44).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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(s) 7-8 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mobley (US 5,715,534 A), in view of Kelly (US 2018/0146734 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Mobley discloses the hat with a rotatable brim of Claim 1. While Mobley discloses the hat is not limited to be made of any conventional materials, Mobley does not directly disclose wherein the hat is constructed of a waterproof material.
However, Kelly teaches wherein the hat is constructed of a waterproof material (para. 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted hat material of Mobley for a waterproof material taught by Kelly, as a simple substitution of one well known apparel material for another, in order to yield the predictable result of providing a comfortable and durable fabric structure for an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. Further, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 8, Mobley discloses the hat with a rotatable brim of Claim 1. While Mobley discloses the hat is not limited to be made of any conventional materials, Mobley does not directly disclose wherein the hat is constructed of a UV- proof material.
However, Kelly teaches wherein the hat is constructed of a UV- proof material (para. 46, “sun protectant”, “SPF use”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted hat material of Mobley for a UV- proof material taught by Kelly, as a simple substitution of one well known apparel material for another, in order to yield the predictable result of providing a comfortable and durable fabric structure for an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. Further, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 15, Mobley discloses the hat with a rotatable brim of Claim 14. While Mobley discloses the hat is not limited to be made of any conventional materials, Mobley does not directly disclose wherein the hat is constructed of a waterproof material.
However, Kelly teaches wherein the hat is constructed of a waterproof material (para. 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted hat material of Mobley for a waterproof material taught by Kelly, as a simple substitution of one well known apparel material for another, in order to yield the predictable result of providing a comfortable and durable fabric structure for an aesthetically pleasing design. Additionally, 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. Further, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 16, Kelly further teaches the hat with a rotatable brim of Claim 15, wherein the hat is constructed of a UV- proof material (para. 46, “sun protectant”, “SPF use”).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mobley (US 5,715,534 A), in view of Reinhart et al. (US 9,980,528 B2).
Regarding claim 19, insofar as is definite, Mobley discloses the hat with a rotatable brim of Claim 18, except for wherein the brim may include one or more decorative elements.
However, Reinhart teaches a brim (130; Fig. 13), wherein the brim may include one or more decorative elements (Fig. 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the brim of Mobley to include one or more decorative elements, as taught by Reinhart, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Further, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 20, Mobley further discloses the hat with a rotatable brim of Claim 19, wherein the brim is removably engaged with the crown (col. 2 lines 21-24).
Conclusion
15 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See similar hats cited on the PTO-892 form attached to this Office Action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIAO QT HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7557. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am - 5 pm ET.
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 on 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.
/G.Q.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/KHOA D HUYNH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732