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 the Claims
This Office Action is in response to claims 1-20, filed October 31, 2024, which are pending in this application. An action on the merits follows.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “16” has been used to designate both a “receptacle” and an “outside surface” of the crown as seen in at least Fig. 2 and Fig. 4, respectively, and as discussed throughout the specification.
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “32” has been used to designate both an “adjustment opening” and an apparent surface of the moisture absorbing component as seen in at least Fig. 4 and Fig. 6, respectively.
The drawings are further objected to because in Fig. 5, the line associated with the apparent hat bill abruptly ends and does not connect back with the depicted hat structure.
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 – Disclosure
The disclosure is objected to because at [0032], “winkle” should read “wrinkle”.
The use of the term “ZORB”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application at least at [0032]. 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.
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
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n). That said, claims 13-14, 15-16, and 17 are objected to because the claims are separated from a dependent claim by a claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-20 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 recites the limitation “a wearer’s head” at line 5. It is unclear if the wearer’s head is meant to be the same as the previously recited user’s head. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the claim terms be brought into agreement and all instances refer to a or the “wearer’s head” as appropriate. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art. The limitation should also be corrected throughout the claims including, for example, in each of claims 10 and 12 which each depend from claim 1.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the inside wall surface” at lines 3, 11, and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “the inside surface”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art. The limitation should also be corrected throughout the claims including, for example, in each of claims 3-4, 11, and 17 which all depend from claim 1.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the crown wall” at lines 5 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “the wall of the crown”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art. The limitation should also be corrected throughout the claims including, for example, in each of claims 4-6 and 17 which all depend from claim 1.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “an accessory to control migration of moisture […] and thereby tending to alter an appearance of the crown at the outside wall surface” at lines 7-9. Due to the awkward phrasing of the claim, it is unclear if the presence of the accessory or the hypothetical moisture is tending to alter an appearance of the crown. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the outside wall surface” in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “an accessory configured to control migration of moisture from the wearer’s head to and through the wall of the crown and thereby reduce staining at the outside surface”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the flexible moisture absorbing component is made from an absorbent fabric layer with opposite sides” at lines 1-2. It is unclear if the flexible moisture absorbing component or the absorbent fabric layer are meant to have the opposite sides. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “wherein the flexible moisture absorbing component is made from an absorbent fabric layer, the flexible moisture absorbing component having opposite sides”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “adhered to the inside wall surface fully along the bottom edge of the crown” at line 3. It is unclear what “fully along” means as opposed to simply “along” with respect to the absorbing components being adhered to the inside wall. Furthermore, it is unclear if the word “fully” is meant to refer to the level of adherence or the extent of “along” (i.e., fully along as opposed to some other, unknown lesser extent of along). In either case, it would be unclear what is considered “fully” adhered or along as opposed to simply “adhered” or “along”. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “adhered to the inside wall surface along the bottom edge of the crown”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a bottom edge of the crown wall” at line 3. It is unclear if the limitation is meant to refer back to the bottom edge introduced in claim 1, or if the limitation is attempting to introduce some additional bottom edge. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the crown wall” in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “the bottom edge of the wall of the crown”. The limitation should also be corrected at lines 3-4 of the same claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 17 further recites the limitation “a substantial length” at line 3. It is unclear what length would be considered “substantial” as opposed to “insubstantial”. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “a length”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claims 2-20 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
An effort has been made to identify all indefinite language with the pending claims. However, Examiner notes the above listing of 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections may not be conclusive, and Applicant is required to review every claim for compliance to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) so as to facilitate a clear understanding of the claimed invention and proper application of the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3, as best can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the flexible moisture absorbing component is fixed to the inside wall surface”. The claim does not appear to further limit the subject matter of claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, based on the limitation of “a flexible moisture absorbing component that is attached to the inside wall surface” at lines 10-11 of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-4, 10-14, 16, and 19-20, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0172438 to Han et al. (hereinafter, “Han”) in view of US 2007/0245457 to Gelera (hereinafter, “Gelera”).
Regarding claim 1, Han teaches a headwear piece (See Han, Figs. 1-3; cap; abstract) comprising: a crown with a wall having an inside surface and an outside surface, the inside wall surface extending around a receptacle into which a user’s head is directed with the headwear piece in an operative position, the crown wall extending at least partially around a wearer’s head with the headwear piece in the operative position (See Han, Figs. 1-3; cap body (10) forms wall having exterior surface (12) and interior surface (15) and forming a receptacle into which a wearer’s head can be directed when worn; Examiner notes that “in an operative position” is being interpreted similarly to “when worn”); and an accessory to control migration of moisture from a wearer’s head to and through the crown wall and thereby tending to alter an appearance of the crown at the outside wall surface (See Han, Figs. 1-3; sweat band (30) is capable of controlling hypothetical moisture or sweat from a wearer’s head through the crown and reducing hypothetical staining; [0017]), the accessory comprising a flexible moisture absorbing component that is attached to the inside wall surface and extends upwardly from at or adjacent a bottom edge of the crown, that defines an entry opening for a wearer’s head, and extends through at least 180° around a circumference of the entry opening (See Han, Figs. 1-3; sweat band (30) includes flexible latex band (31) that is capable of absorbing sweat and extends upwardly from adjacent a bottom edge of cap body (10) and around at least 180° of a circumference of a formed entry opening of cap body (10); Examiner notes that the term "adjacent" is very broad and merely means "close to; lying near". (Defn. No. 1 of "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition" entry via TheFreeDictionary.com)).
That said, Han is silent to the accessory further comprising a stabilizer strip that is joined with the flexible moisture absorbing component and exerts a force on the inside wall surface tending to maintain a convex shape of the outside surface of the crown.
However, Gelera, in a related headwear art, is directed to a headwear system having one or more detachable liners including absorbent layers and stiffening bands (See Gelera, Figs. 1-7; abstract). More specifically, Gelera teaches the accessory further comprising a stabilizer strip that is joined with the flexible moisture absorbing component and exerts a force on the inside wall surface tending to maintain a convex shape of the outside surface of the crown (See Gelera, Figs. 1-7; sweat band liner member (14) includes stiffening band (44) at top end of liner member (14); band (44) is capable of exerting a force on an inside wall of a hat crown to maintain a convex shape of the outside surface of the hat crown; [0044], [0047]-[0048]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the stiffening band disclosed by Gelera along the length of the top end of the sweat band of Han for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to providing stiffness and support to maintain a shape of the crown of the headwear (See Gelera, [0044], [0047]-[0048]).
Regarding claim 2, the modified headwear piece of Han (i.e., Han in view of Gelera, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the stabilizer strip extends through at least 180° around the circumference of the entry opening (See Gelera, Figs. 1-7; stiffening band (44) of extends entire length of liner member (14) and would similarly extend an entire length of the sweat band of the modified headwear piece of Han as discussed above and would therefore extend around at least 180° of a circumference of a formed entry opening of cap body).
Regarding claim 3, the modified headwear piece of Han (i.e., Han in view of Gelera, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the flexible moisture absorbing component is fixed to the inside wall surface (See Han, Figs. 1-3; sweat band (30) is fixed to interior surface (15) of cap body (12)).
Regarding claim 4, the modified headwear piece of Han (i.e., Han in view of Gelera, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the crown wall has an inside layer that is folded upwardly and defines a part of the inside wall surface (See Han, Fig. 2; cap body (10) is folded upwardly at bottom edge and define part of interior surface (15)) and the flexible moisture absorbing component overlies the inside layer and extends to above the inside layer (See Han, Fig. 2; sweat band (30) overlies and extend above folded-up part of cap body (10)).
Regarding claim 10, the modified headwear piece of Han (i.e., Han in view of Gelera, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the flexible moisture absorbing component directly engages a wearer’s head with the headwear piece in the operative position (See Han, Figs. 1-3; sweat band (30) is capable of directly engaging a hypothetical wearer’s head when worn).
Regarding claim 11, the modified headwear piece of Han (i.e., Han in view of Gelera, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein a second flexible moisture absorbing component is fixed to the inside wall surface so that the flexible moisture absorbing component and second flexible moisture absorbing component cooperatively extend substantially fully around the bottom edge of the crown (See Han, Figs. 1-3; fabric cloth (32) of sweat band (30) is fixed to interior surface (15); band (31) and fabric cloth (32) each extend substantially fully around the bottom edge of cap body (10)).
Regarding claim 12, the modified headwear piece of Han (i.e., Han in view of Gelera, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the flexible moisture absorbing component is made from an absorbent fabric layer with opposite sides exposed directly to the inside surface of the crown and the head of a wearer with the headwear piece in the operative position (See Han, Figs. 1-3; sweat band (30) includes fabric cloth (32) capable of absorbing at least some amount of moisture or sweat; fabric cloth (32) has opposite sides, one exposed directly to interior surface (15) and the other side, that is folded over the top and bottom, is capable of being exposed directly to a hypothetical head of a hypothetical wearer when worn).
Regarding claim 13, the modified headwear piece of Han (i.e., Han in view of Gelera, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 4 above) further teaches wherein the stabilizer strip is spaced above the inside layer (the stiffening band (44) of Gelera would be positioned at the top of the sweat band (30) of Han which would be spaced above the folded-up part of the cap body (10) of Han in the modified headwear piece discussed above).
Regarding claim 14, the modified headwear piece of Han (i.e., Han in view of Gelera, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 4, and 13 above) further teaches wherein the stabilizer strip is spaced above the inside layer over a majority of a length of the stabilizer strip (the stiffening band (44) of Gelera would be positioned at the top of the sweat band (30) of Han which would be entirely spaced above the folded-up part of the cap body (10) of Han in the modified headwear piece discussed above).
Regarding claim 16, the modified headwear piece of Han (i.e., Han in view of Gelera, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11 above) further teaches wherein the flexible moisture absorbing component and second flexible moisture absorbing component cooperatively define a continuous ring shape (See Han, Figs. 1-3; band (31) and fabric cloth (32) of sweat band (30) together define a continuous ring shape in cap body (10)).
Regarding claim 19, the modified headwear piece of Han (i.e., Han in view of Gelera, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the stabilizer strip has a width greater than 1/4 inch (See Gelera, Fig. 6; stiffening band (44), as applied to the modified headwear piece as discussed above, has a width of about 0.5 inches; [0047]).
Regarding claim 20, wherein the stabilizer strip has a width less than one inch (See Gelera, Fig. 6; stiffening band (44), as applied to the modified headwear piece as discussed above, has a width of about 0.5 inches; [0047]).
Claims 5-9, 15, and 17, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Gelera (as applied to claims 1 and 4 above with respect to claims 5-9 and 17, and as applied to claims 1 and 11 above with respect to claim 15), and further in view of USPN 7,174,572 to Diamond et al. (hereinafter “Diamond”).
Regarding claim 5, although Han teaches stitched attachment between the bottom of the sweat band and the cap body (See Han, Fig. 2), the modified headwear piece of Han (i.e., Han in view of Gelera, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 4 above) is silent to wherein the flexible moisture absorbing component is adhered to the inside surface of the crown wall.
However, Diamond, in a related headwear art, is directed to an article of headwear having a crown portion and a sweat band secured to a peripheral edge of the crown (See Diamond, Figs. 1-10; abstract). More specifically, Diamond teaches wherein the flexible moisture absorbing component is adhered to the inside surface of the crown wall (See Diamond, Fig. 10; sweat band (24) adhered to inside surface of crown via adhesive (39)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to use the adhesive disclosed by Diamond in place of the stitched connection of the modified headwear piece of Han, as the modification amounts to no more than a simple substitution of one known attachment means for another with nothing more than the reasonable expectation of one attachment means performing just as well as the other to yield predictable results, i.e., attaching one structure surface to another, and further since using adhesive to join surface in a garment is a well-known and understood method of forming garments such as headwear.
Regarding claim 6, the modified headwear piece of Han (i.e., Han in view of Gelera and Diamond, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 4-5 above) further teaches wherein the flexible moisture absorbing component is adhered to the inside surface of the crown wall continuously through at least 180° around the circumference of the entry opening (See Han, Figs. 1-3; sweat band (30) would be adhered continuously around at least 180° of a circumference of a formed entry opening of cap body (10) in the modified headwear piece as discussed above).
Regarding claim 7, although Han teaches stitched attachment between the bottom of the sweat band and the folded-up part of cap body (See Han, Fig. 2), the modified headwear piece of Han (i.e., Han in view of Gelera, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 4 above) is silent to wherein the flexible moisture absorbing component is adhered to the inside layer.
However, Diamond, in a related headwear art, is directed to an article of headwear having a crown portion and a sweat band secured to a peripheral edge of the crown (See Diamond, Figs. 1-10; abstract). More specifically, Diamond teaches wherein the flexible moisture absorbing component is adhered to the inside layer (See Diamond, Fig. 10; sweat band (24) adhered to inside surface of crown via adhesive (39)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to use the adhesive disclosed by Diamond in place of the stitched connection of the modified headwear piece of Han, as the modification amounts to no more than a simple substitution of one known attachment means for another with nothing more than the reasonable expectation of one attachment means performing just as well as the other to yield predictable results, i.e., attaching one structure surface to another, and further since using adhesive to join surface in a garment is a well-known and understood method of forming garments such as headwear.
Regarding claim 8, the modified headwear piece of Han (i.e., Han in view of Gelera and Diamond, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 4, and 7 above) further teaches wherein the flexible moisture absorbing component is adhered to the inside layer through at least 180° around the circumference of the entry opening (See Han, Figs. 1-3; sweat band (30) would be adhered continuously around at least 180° of a circumference of a formed entry opening of cap body (10) in the modified headwear piece as discussed above).
Regarding claim 9, the modified headwear piece of Han (i.e., Han in view of Gelera and Diamond, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 4, and 7 above) further teaches wherein the flexible moisture absorbing component is not fixed to the inside surface at a region above the inside layer (See Han, Figs. 1-3; sweat band (30) is not fixed to interior surface (15) above folded-up part of cap body (10)).
Regarding claim 15, although Han teaches stitched attachment between the bottom of the sweat band (30), including band (31) and fabric cloth (32), and the interior of the cap body along the bottom edge (See Han, Fig. 2), the modified headwear piece of Han (i.e., Han in view of Gelera, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11 above) further teaches wherein the flexible moisture absorbing component and second flexible moisture absorbing component are cooperatively adhered to the inside wall surface fully along the bottom edge of the crown.
However, Diamond, in a related headwear art, is directed to an article of headwear having a crown portion and a sweat band secured to a peripheral edge of the crown (See Diamond, Figs. 1-10; abstract). More specifically, Diamond teaches wherein the flexible moisture absorbing component and second flexible moisture absorbing component are cooperatively adhered to the inside wall surface fully along the bottom edge of the crown (See Diamond, Fig. 10; sweat band (24) adhered to inside surface of crown via adhesive (39)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to use the adhesive disclosed by Diamond in place of the stitched connection of the modified headwear piece of Han, as the modification amounts to no more than a simple substitution of one known attachment means for another with nothing more than the reasonable expectation of one attachment means performing just as well as the other to yield predictable results, i.e., attaching one structure surface to another, and further since using adhesive to join surface in a garment is a well-known and understood method of forming garments such as headwear.
Regarding claim 17, the modified headwear piece of Han (i.e., Han in view of Gelera and Diamond, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 4-5 above) further teaches wherein the flexible moisture absorbing component is adhered to the inside wall surface so as to be substantially flush with a bottom edge of the crown wall over a substantial length of the bottom edge of the crown wall (See Han, Figs. 1-3; sweat band (30) would be adhered substantially flush with bottom edge of cap body (10) along the length of the body edge in the modified headwear piece of Han as discussed above).
Claim 18, as best can be understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Gelera, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0404996 to Kelly et al. (hereinafter, “Kelly”).
Regarding claim 18, the modified headwear piece of Han (i.e., Han in view of Gelera, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) is silent to wherein the flexible moisture absorbing component has a vertical height that varies over a length of the flexible moisture absorbing component.
However, Kelly, in a related headwear art, is directed to an article of headwear having a sweat band for transporting perspiration away from a wearer’s forehead (See Kelly, Figs. 5-6; abstract). More specifically, Kelly teaches wherein the flexible moisture absorbing component has a vertical height that varies over a length of the flexible moisture absorbing component (See Kelly, Fig. 6; vertical height of sweat band (510) varies over length of sweat band including a greater height along a forehead portion; [0038]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to increase the height of the sweat band of the modified headwear piece of Han at a front, forehead portion of the sweat band as disclosed by Kelly in order to increase a surface area for absorbing sweat at a wearer’s forehead in order to better wick moisture and protect the wearer’s eyes (See Kelly, [0026]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. USPN 4,856,116 to Sullivan; USPN 6,336,224 to Wang; USPN 5,428,844 to Dougherty; USPN 5,418,981 to Miner; USPN 6,339,844 to Merkley; USPN 5,978,969 to Vinding Diers; US 2003/0019013 to Young; US 2003/0226192 to Wang; US 2018/0343949 to Cunliffe; and US 2005/0132469 to Kim are each directed to articles of headwear and/or headwear having absorbent components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM 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.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732