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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant made the election of Group 2, directed to the embodiment in figures 7-8, without traverse, in the response dated 01/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Check (1453862) (with Jones ‘440 as evidence).
PNG
media_image1.png
964
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
261
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
259
471
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(3) The invention relates to hat protectors such as are used with straw hats and the principal object is to provide a hat protector which can be quickly secured to the brim of a straw hat, to shield same during a rain storm and which thereafter can be conveniently folded and stowed anywhere on the person.
The hat protector is preferably made of three pieces, the fabric of which consists of a close woven variety having the outer or exposed surface thereof coated with a water-proofing compound.
Said fabric 14 has strips 17 sewn thereto extending over the edge 16 and adapted to have spring button elements 18 secured thereto. The hat 10 has holes punched thru the brim adapted to receive the sleeves 19, having a tapered hole 20 therein, the largest diameter of which is at the upper surface 'of the brim of the hat.
Regarding claim 1, Check teaches an assembly, comprising: a protective shell (11+12+14), i.e., flexible shell, sized and dimensioned to cover at least a portion of an upper surface of a headwear (10) while leaving an interior of the headwear accessible to potential consumers without removal of the protective shell; and a coupler (21) that is sized and dimensioned to extend under the headwear at 10 and thereby selectively couple the protective shell to the headwear and retain the headwear in the protective shell. With respect to the functional limitation the protective shell facilitates potential consumers evaluating fit of the headwear while simplifying packaging of the headwear. Note that this limitation and the recitation “retail packaging assembly” do not impart any structure over the assembly in Check. Also note that the recitation “dimensioned to cover at least a portion of an upper surface of a headwear” is an intended use. Note that “flexible shell” is used in the fabric cover of Jones (10624440) “In addition, a cover for a sporting optic includes a flexible fabric shell having an interior surface defining an interior cavity and an exterior surface opposite the interior surface. The flexible fabric shell can be adapted for placement of the sporting optic within the interior cavity via an expandable and contractible opening in the flexible fabric shell.” Thus, the fabric covering of Check is a shell as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, note that there is no other shell disposed under the headwear opposite the headwear from the protective shell in Check.
Regarding claim 3, note the protective shell conforms to the shape of the upper surface of the headwear.
Regarding claims 4, and 14 note that the straw hat in Check is considered a type of hardhat. See Bing’s search:
PNG
media_image4.png
856
1226
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, note the coupler at 17 sized and dimensioned to extend away from the protective shell, around an outer perimeter of the headwear, and to couple to a portion of the headwear disposed inward of the outer perimeter.
Regarding claim 8, note the headwear has an accessory port 20, and the coupler includes a tab 17 that is sized and dimensioned to extend away from the protective shell, around the outer perimeter of the headwear, and into the accessory port, thereby coupling the protective shell to the headwear.
Regarding claim 9, note the coupler 17 has a retainer 21 and is sized and dimensioned to extend away from the protective shell, around the outer perimeter of the headwear, and toward a portion of the headwear inward of the outer perimeter with the retainer securing the coupler to the portion of the headwear and thereby coupling the protective shell to the headwear.
Regarding claim 11, note Check teaches method comprising covering a portion of an upper surface of a headwear with the retail packaging assembly of claim 1 comprising coupling the protective shell to the headwear, whereby the protective shell facilitates potential consumers evaluating fit of the headwear while simplifying packaging of the headwear.
Regarding claim 12, note the device of Check is devoid of a clamshell joint.
Regarding claim 13, note the device of Check does not have a weld.
Regarding claim 17, note the wrapping a coupler (17) of the retail packaging assembly around an outer perimeter of the headwear; coupling the coupler to a portion of the headwear disposed inward of the outer perimeter, thereby coupling the protective shell to the headwear at 21/20.
Regarding claim 18, note coupling the coupler to the portion of the headwear disposed inward of the outer perimeter includes inserting portion 21 of the tab at 17 into an accessory port 20 of the headwear.
Regarding claim 19, note the coupler 17 has a retainer 21 and coupling the coupler to the portion of the headwear 20 disposed inward of the outer perimeter includes securing the retainer to the portion of the headwear.
Regarding claim 20, note only one or more couplers of the retail packaging assembly cover any portion of a lower surface of the headwear shown in the edge of fig. 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Check ‘862 in view of Klamerus (7971278). In the alternative, Klamerus teaches that it is known in the art to provide a cover that can be used for other types of hat including hardhat and helmet.
“however, that the cover 10 can be configured to conform to hats of any configuration (baseball, helmet, beret, hardhat, etc.).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the cover of Check in a hardhat or helmet to provide protection for the desired hat.
Claims 5, 6, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Check in view of Mattesky (6488147). Check does not teach a panel holder sized and dimensioned to extend away from the headwear when the protective shell is coupled to the headwear, the panel holder to an information panel that extends from the protective shell when the information panel is coupled to the panel holder.
PNG
media_image5.png
403
377
media_image5.png
Greyscale
While the foregoing shows attaching gloves together in a merchandising system, in other embodiments other merchandise can be employed.
Panel 20 may be formed of cardboard, sheet plastic or other materials that may be useful for displaying information about the goods. Panel 20 may be printed with typical merchandising information such as trademarks, appropriate images or graphics, a description of the features and qualities of the goods, the source of the goods, warranty information, and the like. Each of the wings 22 and 24 have a hang hole 26 designed to fit over peg 28 of a display rack.
(4) Panel 20 is shown attached to tabs 16 and 18 by means of a staple 30, which is driven through wing 22, tabs 16 and 18, and wing 24. Other embodiments may avoid using a staple but will connect these elements together by rivets, stitches, clamps, glue, or other fastening means.
Regarding claim 5, 15, Mattesky teaches that it is known in the art to a panel holder (22/24) sized and dimensioned to extend away from a merchandise when the protective shell is coupled to the headwear (see citation above), the panel holder being sized and dimensioned to couple to an information panel (the other of 22/24) that extends from the merchandise when the information panel is coupled to the panel holder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the panel holder and the information panel as taught by Mattesky to enable to sell and to provide the desired information for the device in Check.
Regarding claim 6, and 16 note the hanger opening at 26 to enable hanging the shell and headwear from a retail hanger or post.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Check in view of Arnet (1511313). Check meets all claimed limitations except for the material being transparent or translucent. Arnet teaches that it is known in the art to provide the cover being transparent:
protector 16 which is preferably made of transparent rubber fabric or similar waterproofed material,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Check of transparent material to enable one to see the inside hat.
SET II:
Claim 1-4, 7-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown II et al. (11278067).
PNG
media_image6.png
533
455
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
285
292
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
761
928
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches an assembly, comprising: a protective shell (100, 200, 300, 600 fig 84-86), sized and dimensioned to cover at least a portion of an upper surface of a headwear (at least at 106 fig. 2, 206 fig. 5, 306/318a/318b fig. 9, 606) while leaving an interior of the headwear accessible to potential consumers without removal of the protective shell; and a coupler (bottom edge at 104, 204, 304, at 328a/b at 338 fig. 22, fig 56 at slit, 606 or 623a fig. 85 ) that is sized and dimensioned to extend under the headwear at 10 and thereby selectively couple the protective shell to the headwear and retain the headwear in the protective shell. With respect to the functional limitation the protective shell facilitates potential consumers evaluating fit of the headwear while simplifying packaging of the headwear. Note that this limitation and the recitation “retail packaging assembly” do not impart any structure over the assembly in Brown.
Regarding claim 2, note that there is no other shell disposed under the headwear opposite the headwear from the protective shell in Brown.
Regarding claim 3, note the slit at 204/304/604 and the portion above conforms to the shape of the upper surface of the headwear.
Regarding claim 4, note that the hardhat or helmet in fig. 85.
Regarding claim 7, note the coupler at 328a/b in fig. 22 and 322b fig. 56, 623a/b in fig.84a-86 sized and dimensioned to extend away from the protective shell, around an outer perimeter of the headwear, and to couple to a portion of the headwear disposed inward of the outer perimeter.
Regarding claims 8, note the headwear has an accessory port at 328a/b in fig. 22 and 322b fig. 56, 670 in fig. 86 and the coupler includes a tab (623a/b in fig. 84a-86) that is sized and dimensioned to extend away from the protective shell, around the outer perimeter of the headwear, and into the accessory port, thereby coupling the protective shell to the headwear.
Regarding claim 9, note the coupler 328a/b in fig. 22 and 322b fig. 56 has a retainer the tab end and is sized and dimensioned to extend away from the protective shell, around the outer perimeter of the headwear, and toward a portion of the headwear inward of the outer perimeter with the retainer securing the coupler to the portion of the headwear and thereby coupling the protective shell to the headwear.
Regarding claim 10 Brown teaches the transparent material.
Regarding claim 11, note Brown teaches method comprising covering a portion of an upper surface (at 106 fig. 2, 206 fig. 5, 306/318a/318b fig. 9, 606) of a headwear with the retail packaging assembly of claim 1 comprising coupling the protective shell to the headwear, whereby the protective shell facilitates potential consumers evaluating fit of the headwear while simplifying packaging of the headwear.
Regarding claim 12, note the device of Brown is devoid of a clamshell joint.
Regarding claim 13, note the device of Brown does not have a weld.
Regarding claim 14, note the hardhat 614 above and at least 606 conforms to the shape of at least a portion of the upper surface.
Regarding claim 17, note the wrapping a coupler (at least at 328a/b in fig. 22 and 322b fig. 56) of the retail packaging assembly around an outer perimeter of the headwear; coupling the coupler to a portion of the headwear disposed inward of the outer perimeter, thereby coupling the protective shell to the headwear at the slits portions.
Regarding claim 18, note coupling the coupler to the portion of the headwear disposed inward of the outer perimeter includes inserting portion (at least at 328a/b in fig. 22 and 322b fig. 56) an accessory port (the slit) of the headwear.
Regarding claim 19, note the coupler has a retainer (at least at 328a/b in fig. 22 and 322b fig. 56, 452 in fig. 62a, 623a/b in fig. 84a-86) and coupling the coupler to the portion of the headwear 20 disposed inward of the outer perimeter includes securing the retainer to the portion of the headwear.
Regarding claim 20, note that the coupler comprises the edges of the slots at (106 fig. 2) and at least in fig. 106 only the lower edge of the slot 106 cover any portion of a lower surface of the headwear.
PNG
media_image9.png
382
364
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claims 5, 6, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Mattesky (6488147). Brown does not teach a panel holder sized and dimensioned to extend away from the headwear when the protective shell is coupled to the headwear, the panel holder to an information panel that extends from the protective shell when the information panel is coupled to the panel holder.
PNG
media_image5.png
403
377
media_image5.png
Greyscale
While the foregoing shows attaching gloves together in a merchandising system, in other embodiments other merchandise can be employed.
Panel 20 may be formed of cardboard, sheet plastic or other materials that may be useful for displaying information about the goods. Panel 20 may be printed with typical merchandising information such as trademarks, appropriate images or graphics, a description of the features and qualities of the goods, the source of the goods, warranty information, and the like. Each of the wings 22 and 24 have a hang hole 26 designed to fit over peg 28 of a display rack.
(4) Panel 20 is shown attached to tabs 16 and 18 by means of a staple 30, which is driven through wing 22, tabs 16 and 18, and wing 24. Other embodiments may avoid using a staple but will connect these elements together by rivets, stitches, clamps, glue, or other fastening means.
Regarding claim 5, and 15 Mattesky teaches that it is known in the art to a panel holder (22/24) sized and dimensioned to extend away from a merchandise when the protective shell is coupled to the headwear (see citation above), the panel holder being sized and dimensioned to couple to an information panel (the other of 22/24) that extends from the merchandise when the information panel is coupled to the panel holder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the panel holder and the information panel as taught by Mattesky to enable to sell and to provide the desired information for the device in Brown.
Regarding claim 6, and 16 note the hanger opening at 26 to enable hanging the shell and headwear from a retail hanger or post.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Check rejection, applicant asserts that (A) Check does not disclose a rigid or semi-rigid retail packaging shell. The claims require a protective shell sized and dimensioned to cover at least a portion of an upper surface of the headwear while leaving the interior accessible to potential consumers for try-on. As recited, the protective shell is a retail packaging component that retains its shape independent of the headwear and functions to protect and display the headwear during retail sale. Check, by contrast, discloses a soft, flexible fabric cover that drapes over a hat. The Check cover does not retain its shape, does not enclose or retain the headwear as packaging, and does not function as a protective shell for retail display, (B) Check requires invasive attachment that alters the headwear using snap fasteners that require holes to be formed in the brim of the hat, (C) Check is not directed to retail packaging and lacks the claimed configuration, and (D) The configuration disclosed in Check flexible fabric secured beneath the brim-does not leave the interior of the headwear accessible for consumer try-on while the cover remains attached, as required by the claims.
The examiner submits: Regarding the material, note that i) the claim does not recite the asserted material “of a rigid or semi-rigid retail packaging shell”, ii) in this art the term shell comprises flexible material as cited by Jones above, also see US Patent. 8,192,083 and 8475045. Also note that a quick search from https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shell, a broad definition of shell “any of various objects resembling such a covering, as in shape or in being more or less concave or hollow” does not require the material to be rigid or semi-rigid.
US Patent. 8,192,083
PNG
media_image10.png
941
538
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(37) The shell 24 may be formed of flexible material which may be wrappable. In some example embodiments the bag 20 may be a reusable bag and generally sturdy materials may be used. Suitable materials include but are not limited to plastic, fabric, or leather based materials.
US Patent 8475045
PNG
media_image11.png
484
688
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(12) The outer shell 20 of the bag 10 is generally comprised of a flexible material 12. In at least one embodiment, the flexible material 12 may be a textile material, such as, for example, a knit, woven, or non-woven fabric. In other embodiments, the flexible material 12 may be a leather material or synthetic material.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shell
any of various objects resembling such a covering, as in shape or in being more or less concave or hollow.
Regarding invasive attachment, the examiner submits: i) the claim recites “a protective shell sized and dimensioned to cover at least a portion of a headwear”, ii) note that term coupler is broad and does not exclude any kind of other coupling structure which include fasteners in Check, iii) also note that the applicant’s assertion that the coupling structure requires non-invasive coupler contradicts the claimed structure since applicant’s own headwear requires a port which is also a permanent structure comprising a hole in applicant’s headwear, iv) in view of Applicant’s argument about the coupler on the headwear, the examiner consider the “retail packaging” comprises a combination of both a cover and a headwear.
Regarding that Check is not directed to retail packaging. The examiner submits: i) Note that the recitation “a retail packaging” does not impart any structure over the combination of cover and headwear in Check, iii) both the cover and headwear in Check can be sold together as a package.
Regarding the configuration disclosed in Check-flexible fabric secured beneath the brim-does not leave the interior of the headwear accessible for consumer try-on while the cover remains attached. The examiner submits: i) Check clearly teaches hat being placed on user while the cover on the hat. “The invention relates to hat protectors such as are used with straw hats and the principal object is to provide a hat protector in which can be quickly secured to the brim of a straw hat to shield same during a rain storm.”, ii) In the exact manner as applicant’s invention, it is noted of fig. 3 in which the shell is attached to the head wear on the outside leaving the inside of the hat open for a wearer
Regarding the Check in view of Klamerus rejection, applicant asserts that Klamerus discloses a protective neck covering for headwear intended for use during wear. Like Check, Klamerus is directed to protective apparel accessories, not retail packaging. The examiner submits: i) the rejection of Check in view of Klamerus is an alternative rejection to show that a cover can be used in a hard hat and the cover of Check is also hardhat as well as shown by evidence cited in claim 4, ii) regarding the assertion that the combination is not a retail package, as set forth above the recitation “a retail packaging” does not impart any structure over the combination of cover and headwear in Check, iii) both the cover and headwear in Check can be sold together as a package.
Regarding the Check in view of Mattesky rejection, applicant asserts that Mattesky addresses an unrelated problem in a different field. There is no teaching or suggestion to combine Mattesky's glove display panel with Check's fabric rain cover to arrive at a rigid retail packaging system for headwear. The examiner submits that the i) It is noted that the Mattesky teaches a merchandising system can display merchandise on a display rack for a pair of articles to be worn by a person and can be used in other merchandises other than gloves:
A merchandising system can display merchandise on a display rack. The system has a pair of articles to be worn by a person (for example, gloves).
(22) It is appreciated that various modifications may be implemented with respect to the above described, preferred embodiment. While the foregoing shows attaching gloves together in a merchandising system, in other embodiments other merchandise can be employed
The device in Check is a wearable merchandise with two parts the headwear and the cover. Accordingly, this is exactly the merchandise intended to be used in Mattesky. Also, note that under KSR, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Also noted that the display device, as explicitly taught can be used with other wearable merchandise such as the wearable device in Check, the combination is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art
Regarding the Check in view of Arnet rejection, applicant asserts that like Check, Arnet is directed to weather protection during wear, not retail packaging. The examiner submits both Check in view of Arnet are in the same analogous art and the combination of is within the skill and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The argument of the retail packaging has been addressed, supra.
Regarding the Brown rejection, applicant asserts that Brown does not disclose or suggest a retail packaging shell, consumer try-on while packaged, or non-invasive coupling for merchandising purposes.
PNG
media_image12.png
351
377
media_image12.png
Greyscale
As set forth supra, the examiner submits: i) Note that the recitation “a retail packaging” does not impart any structure over the combination of cover and hardhat or headwear in Brown, ii) both the cover and headwear in Brown can be sold together.
Regarding the Brown in view of Mattesky rejection, as set forth above, i) Mattesky teaches a merchandising system can display merchandise on a display rack for a pair of articles to be worn by a person and can be used in other merchandises other than gloves, as explicitly taught the merchandising system can be used with other wearable merchandise such as the wearable device in Brown, the combination is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI M MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4541. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Mon-Friday).
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
TRI M. MAI
Examiner
Art Unit 3733
/TRI M MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights