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
This Office Action is in response to Claims 1-20, filed August 13, 2024, which are pending in this application.
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 pants, shirts, jackets, sweaters, gloves, shoes, boots and other articles worn by a user (claim 12) 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Reference is made to Fig. 7 in the second paragraph on page 9, however the drawings do not include Fig. 7 and the “Brief Description of Drawings” does not include a Fig. 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 12, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7 and 18 are exact duplicates of claims 6 and 7, respectively, and should be cancelled or amended;
Claim 12 should recite, “headwearheadwear pants, shirts, jackets, sweaters, gloves, shoes, boots and other articles configured to be worn by a user”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 16-18, and 20 (and claims 4, 8, 13-15, and 19 at least for depending from a rejected claim) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite as it recites, “A hat and interlocking patch combination comprising: a substantially fabric hat having at least a crown… and at least two patches”. It is unclear if the “substantially fabric hat” is referring to the hat claimed in the preamble or a different/additional hat. It is likewise unclear if the “at least two patches” are referring to the “interlocking patch” or in addition. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to recite, “A combination comprising: a substantially fabric hat having at least a crown… and at least two patches”.
Claim 2 is indefinite as it recites, “said crown including a lower substantially circular edge”. It is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art can ascertain how much the lower edge can deviate from a circle and still be considered at least “substantially” circular. It is unclear what structure can be included or excluded by the claim.
Claim 3 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein a portion of the hat is provided with a storage component configured for accommodating one or more patches.” It is unclear if the “one or more patches” is referring to the “at least two patches” or different/additional patches.
Claims 5-7 are indefinite as each recites, “wherein the pouch is affixed to an interior portion of a/the hat/a visor portion of the hat”. As claim 3 recites, “wherein a portion of the hat is provided with a storage component”, it is unclear if the interior portion or visor is the portion of the hat or in additional to the portion of the hat. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to recite, “wherein the pouch is affixed to the portion of the hat, and wherein the portion of the hat is an interior portion of the hat/a visor portion of the hat”.
Claims 6-7 are indefinite as each recites, “wherein the pouch is affixed to a visor portion of a hat”. It is unclear if “a hat” is referring the hat recited in claim 1 or to a different/additional hat.
Claim 9 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein a plurality of patches configured to interlock with one another are provided.” It is unclear if “a plurality of patches” includes the “at least two patches” or is in addition to the “at least two patches”. Further if it includes the “at least two patches”, it is unclear if claim 9 is further limiting as the “at least two patches” can already be considered a plurality.
Claim 11 is indefinite as it recites, “An apparel article and interlocking patch combination comprising:… at least two patches”. It is likewise unclear if the “at least two patches” are referring to the “interlocking patch” or in addition to the interlocking patch. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to recite, “A combination comprising: a substantially fabric hat having at least a crown… and at least two patches”. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to recite, “A[[n]]an apparel article comprising a substantially fabric area…; and at least two patches”.
Claim 11 is indefinite as it recites, “a substantially fabric area configured to fit about a user having a first discrete area of hook material located on a portion of the fabric portion”. First, it is unclear if the first discrete area is part of the substantially fabric area or the user. Second, “the fabric portion” lacks antecedent basis and it’s unclear if it is referring to the fabric area or to a different structure. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to recite, “a substantially fabric area configured to fit about a user, the substantially fabric area having a first discrete area of hook material located on a portion of the fabric area” and amending the remaining claims where “the fabric portion” is used.
Claim 12 is indefinite as it recites, “other articles of clothing worn by a user”. It is unclear if “a user” is referring to the same user previously recited in claim 11 or a different user”. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to recite, “other articles of clothing configured to be worn by [[a]] the user”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "wherein the pouch is affixed to an interior portion of the hat" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear what “the hat” is referring to as only “a substantially fabric area” and “a portion of the apparel” has been recited.
Claims 17 and 18 are indefinite as each recites, “wherein the pouch is affixed to a visor portion of a hat.” It is unclear if the hat is in addition to the “substantially fabric area” or the “portion of the apparel” previously recited in claims 11 and 14 or if the combination now also comprises a hat in addition to the substantially fabric portion or portion of apparel.
Claim 20 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein a plurality of patches configured to interlock with one another are provided.” It is unclear if “a plurality of patches” includes the “at least two patches” or is in addition to the “at least two patches”. Further if it includes the “at least two patches”, it is unclear if claim 9 is further limiting as the “at least two patches” can already be considered a plurality.
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) 1-2, 8-13, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brannon (US 5359733) in view of Caplan (US 2018/0280818).
Regarding claim 1, Brannon discloses a hat and interlocking patch combination comprising: a substantially fabric hat (10, Figs. 1-2; disclosed as substantially fabric in claim 1) having at least a crown (11a, 11b, 12a, 12b, 13a, and 13b), a visor (16) connected to said crown (see Fig. 1), a first discrete area of hook material located on said crown (area under patch 20, see col. 2, line 68 – col. 2, lines 1-5 where this area is disclosed as hook material) and proximal to said visor (as seen in Fig. 1); and a
at least two patches (20, as a plurality of patches is disclosed in col. 3, lines 60-65), each of said patches having a first surface bearing visual indicia and a second surface covered with loop material (as understood from the other patches such as patches 22 and 24, where each has a front surface 22a/24a with indicia and a rear surface that is now shown but is covered with loop material, see col. 4, lines 30-40), each of said patches is connectable to said first discrete area of hook material of said hat (as the patches have a rear side with loop, further see col. 3, lines 60-65), at least two patches are configured to touch with one another when connected to said first discrete area of hook material of said hat (as they are capable of being abutted to one another).
Brannon teaches that “the patch may be configured according to any predetermined shape” (col 4, lines 66-67) and where the patches are capable of being placed next to each other when connected to said first discrete area of hook material of said hat, but does not expressly disclose wherein said at least two patches are configured to interlock with one another.
Caplan teaches coordinated removable decorative patches wherein said at least two patches (plurality of 20, each including interlocking pieces 22, 24, and 26) are configured to interlock with one another (shown as 20b for example in Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the patches of Brannon so that they interlock with one another as taught by Caplan so that the patches “may be mixed and match to form larger patterns” (see para. 0007 of Caplan). 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.
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 combination, there would be a reasonable expectation for the structure to perform such functions, as Examiner has explained after each functional limitation.
Regarding claim 2, the modified combination of Brannon discloses further including a second discrete area of hook material located on said crown (area under patch 21, see col. 3, lines 5-10), said crown including a lower substantially circular edge defining a hat circumference (edge starting at 17 and extending around the dome of the crown), said first discrete area of hook material separated from and located substantially opposite to said second discrete area of hook material across the hat circumference (as can be seen between Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 8, the modified combination of Brannon discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein said first discrete area of hook material defines a rectangular shape.
A further embodiment of Brannon (Fig. 3) teaches wherein said first discrete area of hook material defines a rectangular shape (see Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 32-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the first discrete area of hook material of Brannon to be rectangular since “hook material should only be placed in locations on the cap where a user is likely to apply a patch or patches. The hook material is likely to gather lint or thread, which results in an unsightly appearance. By minimizing the location of hook material on the hat or cap ensures that large areas of the cap are not susceptible to gathering lint or thread” (see col. 3, lines 66-68 to col. 4 lines 1-4). 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 9, the modified combination of Brannon discloses wherein a plurality of patches (disclosed in col. 3, lines 50-65 of Brannon) configured to interlock with one another are provided (as the patches have been modified by Caplan to interlock with each other).
Regarding claim 10, the modified combination of Brannon discloses wherein each of said plurality of patches configured to interlock with one another are provided with indicia different than one another (as can be seen in Fig. 2 of Caplan). Further, Examiner notes indicia is considered printed matter and “"[O]nce it is determined that the limitation is directed to printed matter, [the examiner] must then determine if the matter is functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate, and only if the answer is ‘no’ is the printed matter owed no patentable weight…. Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists.” See MPEP 2111.05. As such, the indicia is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 11, Brannon discloses an apparel article and patch combination comprising: a substantially fabric area (10, Figs. 1-2; disclosed as substantially fabric in claim 1) configured to fit about a user (as ballcaps fit the head of a user) having a first discrete area of hook material located on a portion of the fabric portion (area under patch 20, see col. 2, line 68 – col. 2, lines 1-5 where this area is disclosed as hook material); and at least two patches (20, as a plurality of patches is disclosed in col. 3, lines 60-65), each of said patches having a first surface bearing visual indicia and a second surface covered with loop material (as understood from the other patches such as patches 22 and 24, where each has a front surface 22a/24a with indicia and a rear surface that is now shown but is covered with loop material, see col. 4, lines 30-40), each of said patches is connectable to said first discrete area of hook material of said hat (as the patches have a rear side with loop, further see col. 3, lines 60-65), at least two patches are configured to touch with one another when connected to said first discrete area of hook material of said hat (as they are capable of being abutted to one another).
Brannon teaches that “the patch may be configured according to any predetermined shape” (col 4, lines 66-67) and where the patches are capable of being placed next to each other when connected to said first discrete area of hook material of said hat, but does not expressly disclose wherein said at least two patches are configured to interlock with one another.
Caplan teaches coordinated removable decorative patches wherein said at least two patches (plurality of 20, each including interlocking pieces 22, 24, and 26) are configured to interlock with one another (shown as 20b for example in Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the patches of Brannon so that they interlock with one another as taught by Caplan so that the patches “may be mixed and match to form larger patterns” (see para. 0007 of Caplan). 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.
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 combination, there would be a reasonable expectation for the structure to perform such functions, as Examiner has explained after each functional limitation.
Regarding claim 12, the modified combination of Brannon discloses
wherein the apparel article is headwear (as 10 can be seen as a hat in Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, the modified combination of Brannon discloses further including a second discrete area of hook material located on said fabric portion of said apparel article (area under patch 21, see col. 3, lines 5-10), wherein said first discrete area of hook material is separated from said second discrete area of hook material (as can be seen between Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 19, the modified combination of Brannon discloses all the limitations of claim 11, but does not expressly disclose wherein said first discrete area of hook material defines a rectangular shape.
A further embodiment of Brannon (Fig. 3) teaches wherein said first discrete area of hook material defines a rectangular shape (see Fig. 3 and col. 3, lines 32-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the first discrete area of hook material of Brannon to be rectangular since “hook material should only be placed in locations on the cap where a user is likely to apply a patch or patches. The hook material is likely to gather lint or thread, which results in an unsightly appearance. By minimizing the location of hook material on the hat or cap ensures that large areas of the cap are not susceptible to gathering lint or thread” (see col. 3, lines 66-68 to col. 4 lines 1-4). 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 20, the modified combination of Brannon discloses wherein a plurality of patches (disclosed in col. 3, lines 50-65 of Brannon) configured to interlock with one another are provided (as the patches have been modified by Caplan to interlock with each other).
Claim(s) 3-5 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Brannon and Caplan, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Taguchi (US 6519779).
Regarding claims 3, 4, and 5, the modified combination of Brannon and Caplan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein a portion of the hat is provided with a storage component configured for accommodating one or more patches [claim 3], wherein the storage component is a pouch formed of a flexible material [claim 4], and wherein the pouch is affixed to an interior portion of the hat [claim 5].
Taguchi teaches apparel with interchangeable indicia wherein a portion (200) of the hat (100) is provided with a storage component (flap 280) configured for accommodating one or more patches (see Fig. 6), wherein the storage component is a pouch (as the connection of the flap to the crown creates a pouch) formed of a flexible material (as can be seen in Fig. 6, the material is flexible as it can be moved), and wherein the pouch is affixed to an interior portion of the hat (as seen in Fig. 6).
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 a storage pouch to the interior of the hat of modified Brannon as taught by Taguchi “to facilitate storage of [patches] that are not attached to [the hook material]” (see col. 5, lines 43-50).
Regarding claims 14, 15, and 16, the modified combination of Brannon and Caplan discloses all the limitations of claim 11 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein a portion of the apparel is provided with a storage component configured for accommodating one or more patches [claim 14], wherein the storage component is a pouch formed of a flexible material [claim 15], and wherein the pouch is affixed to an interior portion of the hat [claim 16].
Taguchi teaches apparel with interchangeable indicia wherein a portion (200) of the hat (100) is provided with a storage component (flap 280) configured for accommodating one or more patches (see Fig. 6), wherein the storage component is a pouch (as the connection of the flap to the crown creates a pouch) formed of a flexible material (as can be seen in Fig. 6, the material is flexible as it can be moved), and wherein the pouch is affixed to an interior portion of the hat (as seen in Fig. 6).
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 a storage pouch to the interior of the hat of modified Brannon as taught by Taguchi “to facilitate storage of [patches] that are not attached to [the hook material]” (see col. 5, lines 43-50).
Claim(s) 3-4, 6-7, 14-15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Brannon and Caplan, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Morrow (US 2016/0007667).
Regarding claim 3, 4, and 6-7, the modified combination of Brannon and Caplan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein a portion of the hat is provided with a storage component configured for accommodating one or more patches [claim 3], wherein the storage component is a pouch formed of a flexible material [claim 4], and wherein the pouch is affixed to a visor portion of a hat [claims 6-7].
Morrow teaches a hat wherein a portion of the hat (portion under the visor) is provided with a storage component (pouch created by a detachable flap) configured for accommodating one or more patches (as it would be capable of holding at least one patch), wherein the storage component is a pouch formed of a flexible material (as can be seen in Fig. 1 a pouch is formed and is of a flexible material as it can be seen as it is peeled away from the hook and loop), and wherein the pouch is affixed to a visor portion of a hat (as can be seen in Fig. 1 and disclosed in para. 0010).
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 a storage pouch to the visor of the hat of modified Brannon as taught by Morrow as it “provides a safer method of attaching objects than an unsecured pocket, it also conceals the objects providing a functional method of holding objects inconspicuously yet conveniently. The hat need not he removed to gain access to the objects stored in the brim” (para. 0008 of Morrow).
Regarding claims 14, 15, and 17-18, the modified combination of Brannon and Caplan discloses all the limitations of claim 11 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein a portion of the apparel is provided with a storage component configured for accommodating one or more patches [claim 14], wherein the storage component is a pouch formed of a flexible material [claim 15], and wherein the pouch is affixed to a visor portion of a hat [claims 17-18].
Morrow teaches a hat wherein a portion of the apparel (portion under the visor) is provided with a storage component (pouch created by a detachable flap) configured for accommodating one or more patches (as it would be capable of holding at least one patch), wherein the storage component is a pouch formed of a flexible material (as can be seen in Fig. 1 a pouch is formed and is of a flexible material as it can be seen as it is peeled away from the hook and loop), and wherein the pouch is affixed to a visor portion of a hat (as can be seen in Fig. 1 and disclosed in para. 0010).
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 a storage pouch to the visor of the hat of modified Brannon as taught by Morrow as it “provides a safer method of attaching objects than an unsecured pocket, it also conceals the objects providing a functional method of holding objects inconspicuously yet conveniently. The hat need not he removed to gain access to the objects stored in the brim” (para. 0008 of Morrow).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Davis (US 2020/0404997) teaches a hat with a plurality of a patches attached by hook and loop, and Schessler (US 6910222) teaches a garment with a plurality of interconnected patches.
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 on 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