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 .
Pro se Disclaimer
While an applicant may prosecute the application and file papers in their application, lack of skill in this field usually acts as a liability in affording the maximum protection for the invention disclosed. Applicants are advised to secure the services of a registered patent attorney or agent to draft and prosecute a patent application, since the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. USPTO employees (including Pro Se Assistance and the examiner of record) cannot give legal advice. To assist applicants in making informed decisions, Pro Se Assistance (https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patents-ombuds/pro-se-assistance-center, ProSeAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov, or Toll free phone number: 1-866-767-3848) can provide assistance in helping applicants navigate http://www.uspto.gov/ and the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) to locate publicly available educational resources.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (headwear) in the reply filed on May 29, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Accordingly, claims 1-19 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1-14.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (see paras. 0006-0007) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Para. 0064 recites, “Referring to Fig. 5a-5b”, however Figs. 5a and 5b do not exist and Applicant should amend to recite, “Referring to Fig. 5[[a-5b]]”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term “polymagnet” (beginning in para. 0021), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Applicant should amend to recite, “POLYMAGNET® (programmable magnet)”.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 9, and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5, should recite, “[[the]] each of the at least two attachment members”;
Claim 7 should recite, “wherein [[a]] nonparallel sides of each of the first and second attachment members are inclined at 45 degree from [[the]] a base of each of the first and second attachment members”;
Claim 9 should recite, “a plurality of interlocking channels with a plurality of projections and grooves”;
Claim 11 should recite, “wherein the first and second frames [[is]] are made up of a thermoplastic polyurethane material”;
Claim 12 should recites, “and the visor by means of stitching or adhesive”.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of stitching or adhesive” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-10, and 12-14 (and claims 3, 5-7 and 11 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite as it recites, “A headwear with a detachable visor, the headwear comprising: a crown portion having a front inner circumferential periphery; a detachable visor having a lip portion….” It is unclear if the second references of “a detachable visor” is referring to the same detachable visor recited in the preamble or to a different/additional detachable visor.
Claim 1 is indefinite as it recites, “a crown portion” and then “the crown”. It is unclear if these are the same structure or different structures.
Claims 1-2, 8-10, and 13 each contains the trademark/trade name “polymagnet”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a programmable magnet and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 1 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the first attachment member is secured to the front inner circumferential periphery of the crown” and later recites, “wherein the first attachment member is secured above an edge of the front inner circumferential periphery of the crown”. As a periphery is an outermost boundary, it is unclear if the first attachment member is secured to this outermost boundary or above the outermost boundary.
Claim 1 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the first attachment member is secured above an edge of the front inner circumferential periphery of the crown to provide an extended fabric member, wherein the extended fabric member facilities seamless coupling between the visor and crown.” As written, the claim appears to require an extended fabric member as a structure in addition to the attachment members, crown, and visor. However, as best understood from para. 0057 and Fig. 2b, the fabric member is not a separate structure but a lower edge of the fabric of the inside of the crown. Therefore it is unclear what is required by the claim.
Claim 2 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the crown and the visor self-align when coupled to each other due to side to side shear force in the polymagnet.” As claim 1 requires that each of the two attachment members includes a polymagnet, it is unclear which of these polymagnets claim 2 is referring to.
Claim 4 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the detachable visor is selected from a fit-ball, a half-circle bill, a square bill, and a curved bill.” It is unclear what a fit-ball visor is and the specification does not provide further disclosure or a drawing to show such a feature. Therefore it is unknow what structure of the visor can be included or excluded by the claim.
Claim 8 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein each of the attachment members comprises a first frame and a second frame facilitate housing for the polymagnet.” As this is grammatically incorrect, it is unclear what is meant by “facilitate housing for the polymagnet”. Further, it is unclear which frame facilitates housing, the first frame or the second frame?
Claim 9 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein each of the frame of the attachment member comprises a plurality of stitching channels, a housing for polymagnet, a rectangular polymagnet and a plurality of interlocking channels with plurality of projections and grooves.” It is unclear if “the frame” is referring to the first frame or the second frame or both. Further as “polymagnet” has no article, it is unclear if it is referring to the polymagnet recited in claims 1 and 8 or an additional polymagnet. Also, as the claim recites, “a rectangular polymagnet”, it is unclear if each of the attachment members now comprise two polymagnets including the polymagnet from claim 1 and the rectangular polymagnet or if Applicant is attempting to claim that the polymagnet (first recited in claim 1) is rectangular.
Claim 10 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the first and second frame interlocks with each other via the pair of interlocking channels providing a housing to accommodate a polymagnet in the form of magnetic sheet.” As claim 10 depends from claim 8, “the pair of interlocking channels” lacks antecedent basis. Further it is unclear if “a polymagnet” is referring to the polymagnet recited in claim 1 or if an additional polymagnet is required.
Claim 12 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein each of the attachment members is attached to the crown and visor by means of stitching or adhesive.” It is unclear if each attachment member is attached to both the crown and the visor or if the first is attached to the crown and the second is attached to the visor.
Claim 13 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the polymagnet is neodymium magnets.” It is unclear if each polymagnet is comprised of a plurality of a neodymium magnet or if each polymagnet is a neodymium magnet.
Claim 14 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein each of the attachment members is configured to have magnetic button at either sides to facilitate additional attachments.” It is unclear what “either sides” is referring to as it could be each end of each of the attachment member or a front side and a back side of each attachment member.
To overcome the above claim objections and rejections, Applicant may amend to recite the following:
A headwear with a detachable visor, the headwear comprising:
a crown
[[a]] the detachable visor having a lip portion, the lip portion is configured to have an anterior portion and a posterior portion; and
at least two attachment members, [[the]] each of the at least two attachment members includes a programmable magnet;
the at least two attachment members includes a first attachment member and a second attachment member;
the second attachment member is secured to the anterior portion of the lip portion of the visor, wherein the first attachment member and the second attachment member facilitate detachable coupling between the crown and the visor;
wherein the first attachment member is secured above an edge of the front inner circumferential periphery of the crown to provide an exposed fabric portion of the crown the exposed fabric portion of the crown facilities seamless coupling between the visor and the crown.
2. The headwear as claimed in claim 1, wherein the crown and the visor self-align when coupled to each other due to side to side shear force in the programmable magnet of each of the at least two attachment members.
3. The headwear as claimed in claim 1, wherein the headwear includes a baseball cap.
4. The headwear as claimed in claim 1, wherein the detachable visor is selected from a
5. The headwear as claimed in claim 1, wherein the crown
6. The headwear as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of the at least two attachment members has a shape of isosceles trapezoid.
7. The headgear as claimed in claim 5, wherein [[a]] nonparallel sides of each of the at least two attachment members are inclined at 45 degree from [[the]] a base of each of the first attachment member and the second attachment member.
8. The headwear as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of the at least two attachment members comprises a first frame and a second frame, the first and second frames configured to facilitate housing for the programmable magnet.
9. The headgear as claimed in claim 8, wherein each of the first frame and the second frame of the each of the at least two attachment member comprises a plurality of stitching channels, a housing for the programmable magnet, a plurality of projections and grooves, and wherein the programmable magnet of each of the at least two attachment members is rectangular.
10. The headwear as claimed in claim [[8]] 9, wherein the first and second frame interlock[[s]] with each other via the plurality of interlocking channels and the housing of each of the first frame and the second frame [[to]] accommodates [[a]] the programmable magnet, wherein the programmable magnet of each of the at least two attachment members is in the form of a magnetic sheet.
11. The detachable headwear as claimed in claim 8, wherein the first and second frame is made up of a thermoplastic polyurethane material.
12. The detachable headwear as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of the at least two attachment members is attached to the crown and the visor by means of stitching or adhesive.
13. The headwear as claimed in claim 1, wherein the programmable magnet is a neodymium magnet[[s]].
14. The headwear as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of the at least two attachment members is configured to have a magnetic button at either end of the at least two attachment members to facilitate additional attachments.
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) 1-8 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (US 2015/0135406), in view of Smith (US 2021/0100308), and in view of Nelson (US 2016/0186789).
Regarding claim 1, Nguyen discloses a headwear (10) with a detachable visor (20), the headwear comprising: a crown portion (12) having a front inner circumferential periphery (64 on inside of crown); a detachable visor (10) having a lip portion (26), the lip portion is configured to have an anterior portion (portion seen in Fig. 2) and a posterior portion (portion seen in Fig. 3); and at least two attachment members (19 and 30), the each of the two attachment member includes a magnet (as each of 19 and 21, is a magnet, see para. 0018); the at least two attachment members includes a first attachment member (magnet 21) and a second attachment member (magnet 19); wherein the first attachment member is secured to the front inner circumferential periphery of the crown (as seen in Fig. 4); and the second attachment member is secured to the anterior portion of the lip portion of the visor (as seen in Fig. 2), wherein the first attachment member and the second attachment member facilitate detachable coupling between the crown and the visor (via the magnets); wherein the first attachment member is secured above an edge of the front inner circumferential periphery of the crown (as seen in Fig. 4) to provide an extended member (portion between 30 and 64 as seen in Fig. 4), wherein the extended fabric member facilities seamless coupling between the visor and crown (as there is no direct attachment of the body of the visor and the crown, only the crown and the lip portion of the visor).
Nguyen does not expressly disclose wherein the magnet is a polymagnet and wherein the extended member is fabric.
Smith teaches a convertible cap system wherein the extended member (inner portion of crown between 30 and 44, see Fig. 4) is fabric (as the crown is made of fabric, see para. 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the crown of Nguyen of a fabric as taught by Smith so that the crown is a soft pliable material in order to conform better to the head of the wear and provide comfort.
The modified headwear of Nguyen does not expressly disclose wherein the magnet is a polymagnet.
Nelson teaches a magnetic closure system wherein the magnet (magnetic pairs 108) is a polymagnet (see para. 0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the magnets of the modified headwear of Nguyen of polymagnets as taught by Nelson in order to “provide a concentrated magnetic flux proximate to the surface of the magnet” (para. 0076) and since polymagnets can achieve strong magnetic forces in smaller sizes, making them ideal for compact and lightweight devices and applications where space is limited such as in the headwear.
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 headwear, there would be a reasonable expectation for the headwear to perform such functions, as Examiner has explained after each functional limitation.
Regarding claim 2, the modified headwear of Nguyen discloses wherein the crown and the visor self-align when coupled to each other due to side to side shear force in the polymagnet (as understood from the abstract of Nelson and due to the use of polymagnets).
Regarding claim 3, the modified headwear of Nguyen discloses including a baseball cap (as shown in Fig. 1, 10 is a baseball cap).
Regarding claim 4, the modified headwear of Nguyen discloses wherein the detachable visor (20) is selected from a fit-ball, a half-circle bill, a square bill, and a curved bill (as seen in Figs. 1-2, the visor has a curved bill).
Regarding claim 5, the modified headwear of Nguyen discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the crown portion is made up from a fabric selected from the group comprising cotton, vinyl, silk, leather, wool, satin, denim, plastic, suede, and velvet. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use one of the claimed materials in the crown of the modified headwear of Nguyen in order to use a fabric that is aesthetically pleasing to the wearer, and since 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. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 6, the modified headwear of Nguyen discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein each of the attachment members has a shape of isosceles trapezoid. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the attachment members of the modified headwear of Nguyen in the shape of an isosceles trapezoid as angled sides of an isosceles trapezoid can provide a more dynamic and visually appealing shape compared to the rigid lines of a rectangle. Further, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04. A Change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 7, the modified headwear of Nguyen discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 5 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein a nonparallel sides of each of the attachment members are inclined at 45 degree from the base. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the attachment members of the modified headwear of Nguyen to have nonparallel sided inclined at 45 degrees from a base in order to provide a more dynamic and visually appealing shape compared to the rigid lines of a rectangle. Further, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04. A Change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 8, the modified headwear of Nguyen discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above but does not expressly disclose wherein each of the attachment members comprises a first frame and a second frame facilitate housing for the polymagnet.
Nelson teaches a magnetic closure system wherein each of the attachment members comprises a first frame (142/166) and a second frame (156/172) housing the polymagnet (magnetic pairs 108 comprising magnets 110/112, disclosed as polymagnets in para. 0076, see description of structure in paras. 0064-0065).
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 frames to house the polymagnets of the modified headwear of Nguyen, as taught by Nelson, in order to protect the polymagnets from exposure to the environment as magnets made with neodymium contain iron and are susceptible to rust.
Regarding claim 11, the modified headwear of Nguyen discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 above and wherein the first and second frames can be made of can be formed of polymeric material(s) but does not expressly disclose wherein each are made up of a thermoplastic polyurethane material. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use thermoplastic polyurethane in the frames of each of the attachment members of the modified headwear of Nguyen in order to use a material that is flexible and elastic, and can therefore stretch, bend, and absorb impacts without breaking, and since 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. MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 12, the modified headwear of Nguyen discloses wherein each of the attachment members (19 and 21) is attached to the crown and visor by means of stitching or adhesive (as they are sewn into strips 28 and 30 on the crown, see para. 0018).
Regarding claim 13, the modified headwear of Nguyen discloses wherein the polymagnet is neodymium magnets (see para. 0063 of Nelson).
Regarding claim 14, the modified headwear of Nguyen discloses wherein each of the attachment members is configured to have magnetic button at either sides to facilitate additional attachments (as the attachment members are capable of having magnetic buttons at each end to create an additional attachment, such as replacing 36/40 with magnetic buttons).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 9-10 are allowable over the prior art of record as none of them, alone or in combination, disclose the frames having a plurality of stitching channels and a plurality of interlocking channels with plurality of projections and grooves. Modifying the prior art of record to have the claimed structure would be hindsight reconstruction based on Applicant’s own disclosure, therefore the claims are allowable.
Responding to an Office Action
Examiner wished to direct applicant’s attention to the following information on how to respond to an office act by visiting https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions. About halfway down the page, you will find a section titled “How to respond to Official Letters”, this is where you will find how to send your response to the office. At template for such a response can be found at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/formatrevamdtprac.pdf.
Claim Drafting Assistance
Examiner wishes to direct applicant's attention to publicly available claim drafting assistance available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/inventor-info-chat#step3 (see the February 15, 2018, program titled “Claim Drafting”). Further, Examiner wishes to direct application’s attention to MPEP 714 and 37 CFR 1.121 which can be found at https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/current#/result/d0e85040.html?q=1.121&ccb=on&ncb=off&icb=off&fcb=off&ver=current&syn=adj&results=compact&sort=relevance&cnt=25&index=7 and provides information on how to properly make amendments.
Amendments to the Claims
If any amendments to the claims are made, you must provide a listing that accounts for all claims that have ever been presented in the application; you must provide this list even if only one word of one claim is being changed. In this list, you must also provide the text of each currently pending (non-canceled) claim. After the claim number of each listed claim, add in parentheses, the appropriate designation: (original), (currently amended), (canceled), (withdrawn), (previously presented), (not entered), or (new).
Only Claims which are currently amended may include markings to show what changes are being made, by striking out words deleted and underlining words added; if any claim is canceled, you don’t have to re-write the text, just put (canceled) after its number.
If changes to a claim(s) are extensive, it should be canceled and rewritten as a completely new claim(s) without underlining. The numbering of the new claims should begin with the number next following the highest numbered claim existing in the application. When claims are canceled, remaining claims should not be renumbered. Also remember that the application filing fee covers up to 20 claims, up to 3 of which may be independent. If at any point in the prosecution the number of active (non-canceled) claims exceeds 20 total / 3 independent, it is necessary to send an additional fee for the additional claims (see enclosed fee list or www.uspto.gov). If claims are later canceled to reduce the number of claims, Applicant will not be entitled to a refund.
Exceptions to the Underlining/Strikeout Procedure
(1) For deletion of 5 characters or less, double brackets may be used, for example [[word]].
(2) if strikeout cannot be easily perceived, for example deletion of the number “4", double brackets must be used, for example [[4]].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Keller (US 2020/03901080) shows a hat a magnetic fastening system where the magnets are contained within housings; Smith (US 2021/0100308) shows a crown and visor connected together with magnets; and Rodgers (US 2021/0112901) shows a crown and visor connected together and having ridges on each to provide resistance thereby keeping the visor stable on the crown.
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