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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/12/25 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
It is noted that claims 5-6 were withdrawn, see office action dated 09/24/25. The status identifiers of these claims should be “withdrawn”, even if applicant amends the claims, the claims still remain in a withdrawn status. The examiner can rejoin withdrawn claims during prosecution. Claims 5-6, as amended, are not directed to Figure 9C (paragraph 0056) as argued, but directed to Figures 16-18 as described in Applicant’s specification in paragraph 0067. Figure 9C and paragraph 0056, details a reinforcing member, but the reinforcing member is placed at the front of the hood and not the rear portion of the hood as disclosed in Figures 16-18. Therefore, changing the dependency of claim 5 to depend from claim 1 does overcome the restriction requirement and is not directed to the originally presented and examined embodiment of Figures 1-9C.
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) 1-3, 7-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 5,369,809) in view of Salmon (GB 2542407).
In regard to claim 1, Hall teaches a garment, comprising: a torso portion configured to be worn over a wearer’s torso (see jacket body in figures 1-2 and 4), the torso portion defining a neck opening configured to surround a neck when worn (figure 4); a neck portion projecting from the torso portion (collar: 12, 13), the neck portion extending at least partially around the neck opening (see figure 4), the neck portion defining a pocket (pouch: 48); and a head cover secured to the neck portion and/or to the torso portion (hood: 10), the head cover including a hood section defining a head-receiving volume (see figures 1-3), the head cover movable between a covering configuration in which the hood section is out of the pocket and in which the head-receiving volume receives the head of the wearer and the face section overlaps a face of the wearer (see figure 1 and 2, vs. figures 3 and 4), and a stowed configuration in which the head cover is contained within the pocket (see figures 3 and 4: column 4, lines 41-55).
However, Hall fails to teach a face section extending from the hood section; and the face section having a mesh panel, the face section extending from a hood section with side edges and a top edge of the face section being attached to the hood section, and the face section overlaps a face of the wearer in a worn configuration.
Salmon teaches a head cover comprising a hood and a face section having a mesh panel, the face section extending from a hood section with side edges and a top edge of the face section being attached to the hood section (limitation does not require the side edges to be attached to the hood section, but for the side edges to extend from the hood section and the top edge to be attached to the hood section: page 7, lines 23-24 through page 8, line 1; alternatively Salomon teaches the face cover (3) attached to the hood and extending therefrom via fastening means (4, 5) (see figures 2 and 3), that allow the face cover to be rolled up and attached to the hood and extending therefrom, wherein the side portions of the face cover (3) are attached to the hood (page 9, lines 1-9: see figure 3)); and the face section overlaps a face of the wearer in a worn configuration (see figure 2, page 7, lines 12-20).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the head cover of Hall with the mesh face section as taught by Salmon, since the head cover of Hall provided with an attached mesh face section would provide a means to protect the user from insects and mosquitos as needed during use. Rolling of the hood of Hall with the attached mesh face section of Salmon would provide a rolled hood and face portion retained within the collar pouch.
In regard to claim 2, the combined references teaches wherein the mesh panel extends from the hood section to a free edge along a length (Salmon: see figure 2 and page 7, lines 23-24 though page 8, line 1), the length selected such that the free edge of the mesh panel overlaps the neck portion (Salmon: figure 2).
In regard to claim 3, the combined references teach wherein the hood section is made of a different fabric than the face section (see mesh of face section of Salmon vs. non-mesh fabric of hood section Salmon and Hall), the hood section is secured to the face section along mating edges (Salmon: page 7, lines 23-24 through page 8, lines 9-24).
In regard to claim 7, Hall teaches wherein the neck portion includes a closing mechanism to selectively open or close the pocket (collar: 12, 13 includes zipper 52 of pouch 48).
In regard to claim 8, Hall teaches wherein the closing mechanism is a zipper closure (zipper 52).
In regard to claim 9, Hall teaches wherein the opposed panels include an inner panel facing the neck of the wearer (collar panel: 23) and an outer panel facing away from the wearer (collar flap: 51), the closing mechanism secured to the inner panel (collar panel 23).
In regard to claim 13, the combined references teach wherein, in the stowed configuration, the head cover is stored into a roll defining layers of the hood section interspaced between layers of the face section (Hall teaches the hood section rolled defining layers (column 4, lines 41-45) and the face cover of Salmon attached to the hood section would provide both the hood and face cover to be rolled defining layers of hood and face section).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 5,369,809) in view of Salmon (GB 2542407) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Humbrecht (US 5,713,077).
Hall and Salmon fail to teach at least one connector secured to the neck portion and at least one complementary connector on the face section, the at least one connector engageable to the at least one complementary connector in the covering configuration of the head cover; and wherein the at least one connector and the at least one complementary connector include at least one male snap connector and at least one female snap connector configured for complementary snap-fit engagement.
In regard to claims 10, Humbrecht teaches at least one connector secured to the neck portion and at least one complementary connector on the face section (39 and 41 on face and 37 on neck portion), the at least one connector engageable to the at least one complementary connector in the covering configuration of the head cover (column 2, lines 45-56).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the hood system of Hall and Salmon with the connectors on the neck and face section as taught by Humbrecht, since the hood system of Hall and Salmon provided with connectors on the neck and face section would provide a means to secure the bottom edge of the face panel in place during use as desired.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 5,369,809), Salmon (GB 2542407), Humbrecht (US 5,713,077) as applied to claim 10 above an in further view of Frislie (US 5,845,340).
Hall, Salmon and Humbrecht fail to teach the plurality of the connectors being snap connectors.
In regard to claim 11, Frislie teaches connectors for hood and face portions that include snap connectors (column 5, lines 4-14).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the connectors of Hall, Salmon and Humbrecht as snap connectors as taught by Frislie, since the connectors of Hall, Salmon and Humbrecht being snap connectors would provide connectors that do not scratch or pull on the fabric structure during use, laundering, and storage. Here we are taking one well-known connector (Velcro of Humbrecht) and replacing it with another well-known connector (snaps of Frislie) to provide a connector that does not pull or catch on the garment fabric.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 5,369,809), Salmon (GB 2542407), Humbrecht (US 5,713,077), Frislie (US 5,845,340) as applied to claim 11 above an in further view of Perry (US 2,157,011).
Hall, Salmon, Humbrecht and Frislie fail to teach the plurality of the male snap connector on a common tape, and the plurality of the female snap connector on another common tape.
In regard to claim 12, Perry teaches snaps connectors on common tapes (2-4 and 6-7).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the snap connectors of Hall, Salmon, Humbrecht and Frislie with a plurality of snap connectors attached along a common tape as taught by Perry, since the snap connectors of Frislie being attached along common tapes would provide snap connectors that do not need to extend through the garment fabric, creating a stronger more secure snap connector.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Hall (US 5,369,809) in view of Salmon (GB 254407) fail to teach “the face section extending from a hood section with side edges and a top edge of the face section being attached to the hood section” as found in claim 1.
It is noted that this limitation can be interpreted in two different ways based upon how it is written. In the first way the limitation can be interpreted as requiring: 1) The face section extending from a hood section with side edges and 2) a top edge of the face section being attached to the hood section. This interpretation does not require the side edges to be attached to the hood section, but for the side edges to extend from the hood section and the top edge to be attached to the hood section. For this interpretation Salmon teaches the top edge attached to the hood (page 7, lines 23-24 through page 8, line 1).
In the second way the limitation can be interpreted requires: the face section’s top edge and side edges to be attached to the hood section. Salmon teaches the face cover (3) attached to the hood and extending therefrom via fastening means (4, 5) (see figures 2 and 3), that allow the face cover to be rolled up and attached to the hood and extending therefrom, wherein the side portions of the face cover (3) are attached to the hood along with the top edge (page 9, lines 1-9: see figure 3). Additionally, one can argue that the attachment of the top portion of the face section (3) to the hood would include the topmost side edges also (column 7, lines 23-24 through page 8 line 1), since the side edges and top edge meet at an upper point.
If applicant intends to claim a different attachment structure of the side edges and top edge to the hood, the claims could be further amended to detail the specifics about how and where they are attached to get around the Salmon arrangement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISSA L HOEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4985. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00-5:30 EST.
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 T 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.
ALISSA L. HOEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/ALISSA L HOEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732