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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The present invention provides…”, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “comprises/comprising”, “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 35 both recite a “2-D net shape”. This recitation is a physical impossibility.
Any object present in the physical world inherently has 3 dimensions. Height, length and thickness. The current application appears to be incorrectly attempting to describe a net shape with a very thin thickness as shown in the application drawings with the term “2-D”. However, the item in the drawings does have a small thickness so it is not “2-D” as claimed.
Claim 2 is in direct conflict with claim 1. Claim 2 recites, “no interstices are formed between neighboring top portions”; but claim 1 recites “the top portions of radiating spokes collectively forming the central hub; wherein adjacent spokes have interstices between their neighboring crown and brim portions.”. It is not possible for spokes to have interstices between adjacent top portions per claim 1 and then subsequently to “not have interstices”.
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 1-37 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.
Independent claims 1 and 35 both recite a “2-D net shape”. This recitation is a physical impossibility.
Any object present in the physical world inherently has 3 dimensions. Height, length and thickness. The current application appears to be incorrectly attempting to describe a net shape with a very thin thickness as shown in the application drawings with the term “2-D”. However, the item in the drawings does have small thickness so it is not “2-D” as claimed. The term “2-D net” is unclear as to what the applicant is attempting to define as a claim limitation.
Independent claim 1 recites a “a top portion from which the crown portion extends” and “the top portions of radiating spokes collectively forming the central hub”.
It is not clear which “top portions” are being referred to by the term “the top portions”; at the very least the two instances of “top portion” and “the top portions” create some level of clarity issues of what is being claimed and which “top portions” are being limited. All intervening claims which recite “top portion” or “top portions” are similarly unclear.
Claim 2 is in direct conflict with claim 1. Claim 2 recites, “no interstices are formed between neighboring top portions”; but claim 1 recites “the top portions of radiating spokes collectively forming the central hub; wherein adjacent spokes have interstices between their neighboring crown and brim portions.”. It is not possible for spokes to have interstices between adjacent top portions per claim 1 and then subsequently to “not have interstices”. It is impossible to ascertain any scope for this claim examination.
Claims 21, 23, 25 and 31 are unclear because it uses parenthetical phrasing which creates a question as to whether the limitations in the parentheses are actually required limitations or not.
Claim 23 appears to be a typographical error omitting the claim(s) to which it depends. Claim 23 is unclear and cannot be examined without clarity to which claim it depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3-25, 27-37, to the extent they are understood due to 112 rejections noted above, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by US 3869727 (Hartman).
Regarding claims 1 and 35, ‘727 discloses: A foldable hat [per claim 1]/visor [per claim 35] constructed from a 2-D net shape comprising a central hub and a multiplicity of radiating spokes, each spoke of the 2-D net shape radiating from the central hub [per claim 1]/virtual center [per claim 35]; [figs. 1 and 2 show a ‘foldable hat’ with aperture in the top of the hat forming a “visor” with a central hub/virtual center and radiating spokes and as noted above a “2-d net shape” is a physical impossibility; since this statement is physically impossible and in the preamble of the claim and does not give life and breadth to the claimed structure these statements in the preamble have no patentable weight] and comprising:
a crown portion [portions 16 and element 82 form a crown; fig. 1] extending from the central hub [annotated fig. 1 shows two possible “central hubs”];
PNG
media_image1.png
475
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
b. a brim portion [portions 18 form brim, fig. 1] extending from the crown portion [shown explicitly in fig. 1]; with at least one fold-line therebetween [multiple fold line are explicitly shown between the crown and brim portions]; and
c. a top portion from which the crown portion extends [the central portion of element 82 is a “top portion from with the crown extends”], with at least one fold- line therebetween [the folded and unfolded configurations shown in figs 1 and 2 show multiple fold lines between central portion of 82 and crown panels 16], the top portions of radiating spokes collectively forming the central hub [upper portions of panels 18 do form a central hub as seen in fig. 1]; wherein adjacent spokes have interstices between their neighboring crown and brim portions [figs. 2 and 3 show explicitly that brim panels 18 inherently have at least some space/interstices between the adjacent brim panels 18].
Regarding claim 3, ‘727 discloses: having at least one fold-line between neighboring top portions [each neighboring top portion of adjacent spokes is shown in figs. 1 and 2 with multiple joining seams and lines along which the device can be folded].
Regarding claim 4, ‘727 discloses: wherein each spoke, including its top portion forming part of the central hub, radiates outwardly from the centre of the hub, forming a continuous unbroken flat surface [shown explicitly by hat configuration in fig. 1].
Regarding claim 5, ‘727 discloses: wherein no interstices are formed between the central hub and each crown portion extending therefrom [see annotated figure below].
PNG
media_image2.png
471
741
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, ‘727 discloses: wherein the interstices formed between neighboring crown portions have substantially the same geometrical shape as the top portion of each radiating spoke between which each interstice is situated [the interstices between top portions of adjacent spokes in figs. 1 and 2 are inherently defined by the adjacent edges of the spokes so they inherently have the ‘substantially’ same shape as the adjacent edges of the adjacent spokes].
Regarding claim 7, ‘727 discloses: wherein each crown portion [16, fig. 1] has a proximal edge engaging with the central hub [upper edge of 16 engages central hub] and a distal edge engaging with the brim portion [lower edge of 16 engages with brim].
Regarding claim 8, ‘727 discloses: wherein each crown portion proximal edge engages directly with the central hub along the entirety of its length [upper edge of 16 engages central hub the entire circumference as explicitly shown in fig. 1].
Regarding claim 9, ‘727 discloses: wherein any radiating spoke portion is provided by a conjoined multiplicity of sub-portions [all spokes in fig.1 are explicitly shown as conjoined sub-portions].
Regarding claim 10, ‘727 discloses: wherein conjoined sub-portions have fold- lines therebetween, the fold-lines extending radially with the spoke [all spokes in fig.1 are explicitly shown as conjoined sub-portions with radially located fold lines; i.e. the fold lines extend around the radius and seams/lines 80 and adjacent lines of the panels 16 which are lines that can be folded, extend along/in-line with the radius lines of the top of the crown portion as shown in fig. 1].
PNG
media_image3.png
590
887
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 11 and 36, ‘727 discloses: wherein in its constructed 3-D hat form each radiating spoke is attached or secured to opposite neighboring radiating spokes, wherein the hat is foldable along lines of attachment between neighboring spokes into a substantially flat configuration without separation of any line of attachment [explicitly shown in figs. 1, 2, and 3 showing ‘constructed’ form in fig. 1 and folded ‘substantially flat configuration’ in figs. 2 and 3 ‘without separation of any of the lines of attachment’].
Regarding claim 12, ‘727 discloses: wherein the constructed 3-D hat form is flattenable by means of folding, but not by means of unfolding [explicitly shown in figs. 1, 2, and 3 showing ‘constructed’ form in fig. 1 and folded ‘substantially flat configuration’ in figs. 2 and 3].
Regarding claim 13, ‘727 discloses: wherein the foldable lines of attachment extend between the crown and brim portions of neighboring radiating spokes [explicitly shown in figs. 1, 2, and 3 showing ‘constructed’ form in fig. 1 and folded in figs. 2 and 3].
Regarding claim 14, ‘727 discloses: wherein the foldable lines of attachment are configured to allow the hat to be folded along them, without the requirement of releasing any securing element [explicitly shown in figs. 1, 2, and 3 showing ‘constructed’ form in fig. 1 and folded in figs. 2 and 3].
Regarding claim 15, ‘727 discloses: wherein the central hub becomes a top portion of the hat in its constructed form and is common to a plurality of the radiating spokes [explicitly shown in figs. 1, 2, and 3 showing ‘constructed’ form in fig. 1].
Regarding claim 16, ‘727 discloses: wherein the top portion is contiguous with multiple crown portions around substantially the whole of its perimeter or circumference [explicitly shown in figs. 1, 2, and 3 showing ‘constructed’ form in fig. 1].
Regarding claim 17, ‘727 discloses: wherein the lines of attachment are configured to allow mountain and valley folds to be formed in the hat [explicitly shown in fig. 3 and additionally the lines of attachment shown in figs. 1-3 do allow for various folding including adjacent mountain and valleys].
Regarding claim 18, ‘727 discloses: wherein adjacent lines of attachment are configured to form alternating mountain and valley folds in the hat [explicitly shown in fig. 3 and additionally the lines of attachment shown in figs. 1-3 do allow for various folding including adjacent/alternating mountain and valleys].
Regarding claim 19, ‘727 discloses: wherein the respective orientation of neighboring mountain/valley folds in the crown matches the respective orientation of corresponding neighboring mountain/valley folds in the brim [shown explicitly in fig. 3].
Regarding claim 20, ‘727 discloses: wherein the respective orientation of neighboring mountain/valley folds in the top portion is oppositely matched to the pattern of corresponding neighboring mountain/valley folds in the crown and brim [the top portion is part of the crown and folds as claimed are shown explicitly in fig. 3].
Regarding claim 21, ‘727 discloses: having a crown comprising a plurality of crown facets (each formed from crown portions of radiating spokes) foldably connected to one another via the lines of attachment [crown, crown portions/facets foldably connected to each other are shown explicitly in fig. 1].
Regarding claim 22, ‘727 discloses: wherein the crown facets have a quadrilateral shape, optionally substantially trapezoidal or substantially rectangular [crown portions/facets have quadrilateral and/or substantially trapezoidal shape with rounded corners, figs. 1 and 2].
Regarding claim 23 to the extent understood, ‘727 discloses: a brim comprising a plurality of brim facets (each formed from brim portions of radiating spokes) foldably connected to one another via the lines of attachment [crown and brim, crown and brim portions/facets foldably connected to each other are shown explicitly in fig. 1].
Regarding claim 24 to the extent understood, ‘727 discloses: the brim facets have a substantially trapezoidal shape [crown brim portions/facets have substantially trapezoidal shape with rounded corners, figs. 1 and 2].
Regarding claim 25, ‘727 discloses: a top comprising a plurality of top facets (each formed from top portions of radiating spokes) foldably connected to one another [crown/top, crown/top portions/facets foldably connected to each other are shown explicitly in fig. 1].
Regarding claim 27, ‘727 discloses: the brim extends continuously around the entire periphery of the base of the crown [shown explicitly in fig. 1].
Regarding claim 28, ‘727 discloses: the top, the crown and the brim together form a continuous surface [shown explicitly in fig. 1].
Regarding claim 29, ‘727 discloses: the brim is within 45°, optionally within 30°, optionally within 25° of being parallel to the top [brim is shown in fig. 1 if not parallel to the top of the hat very near parallel and well within the range of ‘withing 45 degrees’ of parallel].
Regarding claim 30, ‘727 discloses: the crown within 45 degrees, optionally within 30 degrees, optionally within 25 degrees of being perpendicular to the top and/or to the brim [fig. 1 shows crown portions that are perpendicular to the top and the brim; if not conceded as perpendicular they are clearly well with the claimed range of within 45 degrees of perpendicular].
Regarding claim 31, ‘727 discloses: having an aspect ratio (the ratio between the width of the hat in its brim and the height of the hat in its crown) is at least about 1:1, optionally at least about 1.5:1, optionally at least about 2:1 [the aspect ratio of hat shown in fig. 1 is well above 1:1 as the width is about 2.5 to 3 times larger than the height].
Regarding claim 32, ‘727 discloses: which can alternate between a folded configuration and an unfolded configuration [unfolded shown in fig. 1 and folded in fig. 3].
Regarding claim 33, ‘727 discloses: the folded configuration has less than 50%, less than 20%, less than 10% or less than 5% of the surface area occupied by the hat in its unfolded configuration [the surface area of the folded configuration in fig. 2 includes panel 82; two outer surfaces of panels 16 and 18; while the surface area of the unfolded hat in fig. 1 includes the panel 82 and 8 outer surfaces of panels 16 and 18; the folded configuration’s surface area in fig. 2 is about 1/4th of the surface area of the unfolded configuration in fig. 1; therefore in the range of less than 50% as claimed is disclosed].
Regarding claim 34, ‘727 discloses: the hat top comprises an aperture, or is omitted altogether in order to provide a visor-like foldable arrangement [fig. 1 shows aperture in the top of the hat providing a “visor like foldable arrangement as claimed].
Regarding claim 37, ‘727 discloses: method of folding the foldable hat of claim 33 or claim 33, or the visor according to claim 35 or claim 36, comprising the steps of:
a. applying inward pressure from opposite sides of the crown effective to fold the hat radially inward in a single motion and form a plurality of folded sections; and
b. arranging the folded sections to lie in substantially the same plane [the changing of the configuration in fig. 1 to that of the configuration shown in figs. 2 and 3 inherently requires inwards pressure application at opposing sides of crown portions to fold the hat portions radially inward to form the folded sections as in fig. 2 and arranging them to be substantially flat as in fig. 3].
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) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3869727 (Hartman).
Regarding claim 26, ‘727 does not teach the top facets having a “substantially triangular shape”.
However, the MPEP 2144.04 is clear:
Changes in Shape
In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Instantly no showing of non-obviousness is present regarding the claimed shape of the top facets being “substantially triangular”. The term “substantially triangular” is also further evidence that a particular shape provides some unexpected or critical result.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the invention to modify the shape of the top facets taught by ‘727 to be any desired shape including “substantially triangular” through common engineering design choice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Numerous foldable head covering devices are attached to establish the current state of the prior art.
Applicant is urged to refer to these documents with increased detail and to provide any arguments and/or claim amendments with respect to the teachings and disclosures provided in the attached documents.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR whose telephone number is (571)272-4991. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 730-1730.
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, Alissa Tompkins can be reached at 571-272-3425. 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.
/ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732