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
Applicant’s amendments of 2/3/2026 is/are acknowledged. Claims 3, 6-7, 17, and 20 is/are amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcame each and every claim objection, 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/3/2025. Claims 1-20 are examined.
Drawings
The amended drawings submitted on 2/3/2026 is/are acknowledged and entered. No new matter was presented.
Specification
The amended specification submitted on 2/3/2026 is acknowledged and entered. No new matter was presented.
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) 1-5, 7, and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peedie (US 1,613,675 A).
Regarding claim 1, Peedie teaches a headworn device (1; lines 25-29) comprising:
a crown (see annotated Fig. 2 below) having a wall (see annotated Fig. 2 below), the wall having an inwardly directed surface (see annotated Fig. 2 below, the inward curvature surface of the wall toward the crown is “an inwardly directed surface”);
and a top supported by the wall (see annotated Fig. 2 below), the top having a bottom surface (see annotated Fig. 2 below, where the bottom surface is the internal surface opposite of the annotated top surface);
wherein the bottom surface and the inwardly directed surface provide a recess (see annotated Fig. 2 below) dimensioned to accommodate an upper portion of a head of a person (Fig. 2 & lines 30-34);
and an intersection of the bottom surface (see annotated Fig. 2 below) and the inwardly directed surface establish (see annotated Fig. 2 below) an edge (11; Fig. 2) of a pocket (see annotated Fig. 2 below), the pocket having a first layer (2, 4) attached to the intersection (see annotated Fig. 2 below) and defining a storage volume (see annotated Fig. 2 below, where the pocket has/defines a volume and therefore, is a “storage volume” inasmuch as claimed), and a second layer (5, 7) preventing escape of pocket contents from the pocket during use of the headworn device (lines 48-53; Figs. 1-3 show 5 and 7 preventing escape of pocket contents via 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
347
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Peedie teaches the headworn device of claim 1, wherein the second layer is between the first layer and the bottom surface (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 1 rejection, where 7 is between 2 and the bottom surface/internal surface opposite of the annotated top surface across the diameter of the hat).
Regarding claim 3, Peedie teaches the headworn device of claim 2, wherein the first layer is attached to a majority of the intersection (see annotated Fig. 2 below of where 2 is attached to the annotated “majority of the intersection”) so as to form a pocket opening (see annotated Fig. 2 below; Fig. 3) along an intersection portion at which the first layer is not attached to the intersection (see annotated Fig. 2 below; Examiner notes the term “along” is very broad and merely means “course parallel and close to”, see defn. no. 2 of American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition, 2016, entry via thefreedictionary.com/along, and therefore, the pocket opening of Peedie is “along” an intersection portion at which the first layer 2 and 4 is/are not attached to the intersection inasmuch as claimed), and wherein the second layer is attached to the intersection along less than the majority of the intersection but along the intersection portion (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
438
744
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Peedie teaches the headworn device of claim 1, wherein the first layer is between the second layer and the inwardly directed surface (see annotated Figs. 2 of claims 1 and 3 rejection above).
Regarding claim 5, Peedie teaches the headworn device of claim 4, wherein the first layer is attached to a length of the intersection (see annotated Fig. 2 below) to form a pocket opening along the inwardly directed surface (see annotated Fig. 2 below), and wherein the second layer is attached to the inwardly directed surface over the pocket opening (see annotated Fig. 2 below, where 5 and 7 are over the pocket opening because 5 and 7 are on a plane that superimposes the pocket opening).
PNG
media_image3.png
438
743
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Peedie teaches the headworn device of claim 5, wherein the wall has a wall opening (see annotated Fig. 2 below, where the dashed line at the terminal edge of the wall at the brim of the hat is “a wall opening” inasmuch as claimed) permitting access to the pocket opening (see annotated Fig. 2 below) from an outwardly directed surface of the wall (see annotated Fig. 2 below, where the pocket opening is accessed from the outwardly flared portion of the brim, and therefore, “from an outwardly directed surface of the wall” inasmuch as claimed).
PNG
media_image4.png
430
679
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Peedie teaches the headworn device of claim 1, wherein the first layer is spaced inwardly from the inwardly directed surface (Fig. 2) to provide protection of the head of the person from objects protruding through the wall to the inwardly directed surface (Fig. 2, where 2 and 4 are functionally capable of providing protection of the head of the person from objects protruding through the wall to the inwardly directed surface).
Regarding claim 15, Peedie teaches a method of manufacturing (at least lines 7-10 & 34-90) a headworn device (1), the method comprising:
forming a crown having a wall (see annotated Fig. 2 of claim 1 rejection above), the wall having an inwardly directed surface (see annotated Fig. 2 of claim 1 rejection above, the inward curvature surface of the wall toward the crown is “an inwardly directed surface”);
and forming a top supported by the wall (see annotated Fig. 2 of claim 1 rejection above; lines 29-34), the top having a bottom surface (see annotated Fig. 2 of claim 1 rejection above, where the bottom surface is the internal surface opposite of the annotated top surface);
such that the bottom surface and the inwardly directed surface provide a recess (see annotated Fig. 2 of claim 1 rejection above) dimensioned to accommodate an upper portion of a head of a person (Fig. 2);
and an intersection of the bottom surface (see annotated Fig. 2 of claim 1 rejection above) and the inwardly directed surface establish an edge of a pocket (11; see annotated Fig. 2 of claim 1 rejection above), the pocket having a first layer (2, 4) attached to the intersection and defining a storage volume (see annotated Fig. 2 of claim 1 rejection above, where the pocket has/defines a volume and therefore, is a “storage volume” inasmuch as claimed), and a second layer (5, 7) preventing escape of pocket contents from the pocket during use of the headworn device (lines 48-53; Figs. 1-3 show 5 and 7 preventing escape of pocket contents via 8).
Regarding claim 16, Peedie teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the second layer is between the first layer and the bottom surface (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 1 rejection, where 7 is between 2 and the bottom surface/internal surface opposite of the annotated top surface across the diameter of the hat).
Regarding claim 17, Peedie teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the first layer is attached to a majority of the intersection (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 3 rejection of where 2 is attached to the annotated “majority of the intersection”) so as to form a pocket opening along an intersection portion at which the first layer is not attached to the intersection (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 3 rejection; Fig. 3), and wherein the second layer is attached to the intersection along less than the majority of the intersection but along the intersection portion (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 3 rejection).
Regarding claim 18, Peedie teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the first layer is between the second layer and the inwardly directed surface (see annotated Figs. 2 of claims 1 and 3 rejection above).
Regarding claim 19, Peedie teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the first layer is attached to a length of the intersection (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 5 rejection) to form a pocket opening along the inwardly directed surface (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 5 rejection), and wherein the second layer is attached to the inwardly directed surface over the pocket opening (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 5 rejection, where 5 and 7 are over the pocket opening because 5 and 7 are on a plane that superimposes the pocket opening).
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) 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peedie (US 1,613,675 A).
Regarding claim 6, Peedie discloses the headworn device of claim 5, wherein the length of the intersection is configured to sit above an ear of the person when the headworn device is worn by the person (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 5 rejection, where the length of the intersection is functionally capable of sitting above an ear of a person when the hat is worn).
Regarding claim 20, Peedie discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the wall has a wall opening (see annotated Fig. 2 above of claim 7 above, where the dashed line at the terminal edge of the wall at the brim of the hat is “a wall opening” inasmuch as claimed) permitting access to the pocket opening (see annotated Fig. 2 of claim 7 rejection above) from an outwardly directed surface of the wall (see annotated Fig. 2 of claim 7 rejection above, where the pocket opening is accessed from the outwardly flared portion of the brim, and therefore, “from an outwardly directed surface of the wall” inasmuch as claimed).
Claim(s) 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peedie (US 1,613,675 A), in view of Steinberg (US 1,784,470 A).
Regarding claim 8, Peedie discloses the headworn device of claim 1, except for wherein the crown has a naturally light pigment that maintains a cool temperature in intense sun conditions, the crown being formed from hemp having the naturally light pigment.
However, Steinberg teaches a headwear (Figs. 1-3) that has a naturally light pigment that maintains a cool temperature in intense sun conditions (p. 1 lines 71-77 disclose a hemp material 13, and hemp is a naturally light pigment functionally capable of maintaining a cool temperature in intense sun conditions; Fig. 3 & p. 2 lines 14-20 disclose the braiding of the hemp permitting air circulation, and therefore, functionally capable of maintaining a cool temperature in intense sun conditions), and the headwear formed from hemp having the naturally light pigment (p. 1 lines 71-77; Figs. 1-3).
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 crown of Peedie to be made of a naturally light pigment that maintains a cool temperature in intense sun conditions, and the headwear formed from hemp having the naturally light pigment, as taught by Steinberg, in order to improve the moldability of the hat (p. 1 lines 67-77) and provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Further, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, 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. When in combination, Peedie and Steinberg disclose the crown being formed from hemp having the naturally light pigment.
Regarding claim 9, Peedie discloses the headworn device of claim 1, except for wherein the wall is formed with a stitching count that provides ventilation.
However, Steinberg teaches a headworn device, wherein the wall is formed with a stitching count that provides ventilation (13 of Fig. 3 & p. 2 lines 14-20).
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 wall of Peedie to be formed with a stitching count that provides ventilation, as taught by Steinberg, in order to improve the moldability of the hat (p. 1 lines 67-77) and provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Further, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, 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. When in combination, Peedie and Steinberg disclose the wall is formed with a stitching count that provides ventilation.
Regarding claim 10, Steinberg further teaches the headworn device of claim 9, except for wherein the stitching count is inclusively between 10 and 119 stitches per square inch.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the stitching count of Steinberg to be inclusively between 10 and 119 stitches per square inch, in order to improve the moldability of the hat (p. 1 lines 67-77). Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 11, Peedie discloses the headworn device of claim 1, further comprising a brim (see annotated Fig. 2 below and Fig. 1) extending radially from a base of the crown (see annotated Fig. 2 below and Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
438
595
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Peedie does not directly disclose the brim formed with a stitching count that provides sun protection.
However, Steinberg teaches a brim (see annotated Fig. 2 below) formed with a stitching count (13 on the brim; p. 2 lines 14-20) that provides sun protection (Figs. 1-3, where the brim is functionally capable of providing sun protection).
PNG
media_image6.png
205
413
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 Peedie to be formed with a stitching count that provides sun protection, as taught by Steinberg, in order to improve the moldability of the hat (p. 1 lines 67-77) and provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Further, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, 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. When in combination, Peedie and Steinberg disclose the brim formed with a stitching count that provides sun protection.
Regarding claim 12, Steinberg further teaches the headworn device of claim 11, except for wherein the stitching count is inclusively between 120 and 1000 stitches per square inch.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the stitching count of Steinberg to be inclusively between 120 and 1000 stitches per square inch, in order to improve the moldability of the hat (p. 1 lines 67-77). Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 13, Steinberg further teaches the headworn device of claim 12, wherein the stitching count is a stitching count of a first layer of the brim (13 on the brim is a stitching count of a first layer; Fig. 3), and the brim has a second layer adjacent the first layer (14 on the brim is a second layer adjacent to the first layer; Figs. 2-3).
Steinberg does not directly disclose the second layer formed using a stitching count inclusively between 10 to 119 stitches per square inch.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the second layer formed using a stitching count of Steinberg to be inclusively between 10 to 119 stitches per square inch, in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing design. Further, a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed to the amended limitations, in which additional consideration and reinterpretation has been given for a new grounds of rejection, as stated above.
Regarding claims 1-5 and 14-19, rejected under 35 USC § 102:
Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts Peedie’s elements 5 and 7 are components of a sweatband, not a storage pocket with content retention functionality. Further, Applicant asserts that Peedie does not teach a configuration to retain items such as cash, credit cards, or identification cards within a storage volume during use of the headworn device.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees because at least lines 5-6, 10-13, and 20-24 of Peedie teach a pocket structure to carry articles, see Figs. 1-3. No where in the prior art of Peedie discloses a “sweatband”. Examiner additionally disagrees with Applicant’s assertions that Peedie does not teach a configuration to retain items because Figs. 1-3 show 5 and 7 clearly retaining the pocket items via 8 and lines 48-53 teach the limitation. Further, the items are not limited to Applicant’s examples of cash, credit cards, or identification cards, because lines 5-6 of Peedie teaches “for carrying articles of different kinds”. The rejection of claims 1-5 and 14-19 is/are maintained as stated above.
Applicant’s Remarks: Applicant asserts the prior art of Steinberg fails to teach a pocket structure having a second layer preventing escape of pocket contents from the pocket during use of the headworn device.
Examiner’s Response: Examiner submits that Peedie teaches the limitation and headworn device substantially, as Steinberg was a secondary reference used to disclose limitations for claims 8-13. As such, Steinberg is not required to teach identical structures as taught by Peedie. The rejections is/are maintained as stated above.
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 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
