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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species II in the reply filed on 8/21/2025 is acknowledged. The restriction is deemed proper and hereby made FINAL.
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 “at least one opening in the flexible sleeve” of claim 28 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 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.
Claim 22 is 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.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the wearable head sleeve" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 19, 22, and 28-29 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivares Velasco et al. (US 20200297052). Regarding claims 19 and 22, Olivares Velasco teaches a wearable head band comprising a flexible sleeve (202B) comprising a stretchable fabric material and including a neck end and a crown end disposed opposite the neck end; and a padding (206 and/or 220) disposed on said flexible sleeve and covered by an outer shell (202A) having an outer surface. While Olivares Velasco teaches at the head band is stretchable (0028-0031), Olivares Velasco is nonetheless silent to whether the flexible sleeve has a lengthwise stretchability of about 5% to less than 30% and wherein the flexible sleeve has a width-wise stretchability of about 5% to less than 45%. However, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and/or that it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (0031, 0035), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the sleeve of Olivares Velasco have the claimed lengthwise and width-wise stretchability. The motivation would have been to allow the headband to flex and expand when placed on a user’s head (0028). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Olivares Velasco as specified in claims 19 and 22.
In regards to claim 28, Olivares Velasco teaches at least one opening in the flexible sleeve configured to promote air circulation against skin of a wearer (0031, 0035).
With regards to claim 29, Olivares Velasco teaches wherein at least one opening in the padding configured to promote air circulation against skin of a wearer (figure 5).
Claim(s) 25 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivares Velasco et al. (US 20200297052) in view of Bowen et al. (US 20130247271). While Olivares Velasco does not teach wherein the padding material comprises an inflatable air bladder and inflation port, inflatable bladders and those cushioning materials disclosed by Olivares Velasco (0029-0030) are known to be equivalents within the art. Nonetheless, Bowen teaches a headband with an inflatable bladder (0030) which is selectively inflatable, thus inherently comprising an inflation port. Olivares and Velasco are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. apparel. It would have been obvious to modify the padding of Olivares Velasco as taught by Bowen. The motivation would have been to selectively adjust the padding (firmness) based on the user’s preference. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Olivares Velasco as specified in claim 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8227. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thurs, 6-6.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631