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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to Application filed on 12/13/2024 in which claims 1-20 were presented for examination.
Specification
The use of the term Velcro, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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, 6-7 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niedrich et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0058089 A1) in view of Berry et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2,578,219).
PNG
media_image1.png
699
1326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Niedrich et al. “Niedrich” discloses a protective headwear (Fig. 1a identifier 100) comprising:
a main body (112, 114) comprising an opening (defined by a bottom edge 110) and a bottom edge (110) extending around the opening (See Fig. 1a), the opening configured (capable) to receive a user’s head (when worn); and
a protective material (105) coupled to the bottom edge (110) (See Fig. 1a) so the protective material extends around a back end of the main body (See Fig. 1a), the protective material (105) comprising:
a first side portion (See annotated Fig. A above);
a second side portion (See Fig. A);
a back portion (See Fig. A) between the first side portion and the second side portion (See Fig. A);
wherein the protective material (105) is configured (capable) to move between an extended configuration (Fig. 1a) and a tucked configuration (Fig. 1b), wherein in the tucked configuration, the protective material is configured to be positioned in an interior of the main body so the protective material is positioned between the main body and the user’s head when the protective headwear is positioned on the user’s head (See Fig. 1b).
Niedrich discloses pleats on the protective material (para. 0031).
Niedrich does not disclose the type of pleats such as inverted or box pleats.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have inverted and box pleats for marketing purposes in order to create a more pleasing aesthetic appearance. A change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. In re Seid, 73 USPQ 431. Additionally, the claim would have been obvious because the design incentives or market forces provided a reason to make an adaptation, and the invention resulted from application of the prior knowledge in a predictable manner. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. The inverted or box pleats will be functionally equivalent, meaning that the protective material will protect whether the pleats are inverted or box type pleats.
Niedrich does not disclose a first side pleat between the first side portion and the back portion; a second side pleat between the second side portion and the back portion; and a back pleat on the back portion.
However, Berry et al. “Berry” teaches yet another protective headgear (See Figs. 2-3) having a headwear (10) and a protective material (16) attached at the bottom edge of the headwear (See Figs. 2-3). The protective material (16) having a plurality of pleats (18) wherein the pleat adjacent the right side is considered as the first side pleats, the pleats adjacent the left side is considered as the second side pleats and the pleats adjacent the back is considered as the back pleats.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have manufactured the Niedrich device with a first side pleat between the first side portion and the back portion; a second side pleat between the second side portion and the back portion; and a back pleat on the back portion as taught by Berry to enhance volume, increase coverage and flexibility, improve comfort and fit, enhance protection and the appearance of the fabric.
Regarding claim 2, Niedrich discloses a protective headwear wherein in the extended configuration (Fig. 1a), the protective material (105) is configured (capable) to cover the user’s ears and neck when the protective headwear is positioned on the user’s head.
Regarding claim 3, Niedrich discloses a protective headwear wherein the main body (112, 114) further comprises a visor (101), wherein the first side portion extends from a first side of the visor to the back portion and the second side portion extends from a second side of the visor to the back portion (See Fig. A).
Regarding claim 4, Niedrich discloses a protective headwear wherein a length of the first side portion between the first side of the visor and the back portion (See Fig. A identifier L1), wherein a length of the second side portion between the second side of the visor and the back portion (See Fig. A identifier L2).
Niedrich does not disclose that the length is about 4 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the length (L1 and L2) about 4 inches in order to customize the intended us of the device, for example a protective headwear made for children may require shorter length than a device made for adults., since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 6-7, Niedrich discloses a protective headwear wherein the protective material comprises a water repellent coating, (par. 0032 discloses that the materials may be selected and/or treated to have specific properties, for example, flexibility, sun protection, water repellant or water proof properties, fire retardant properties, anti-bacterial properties, anti-microbial properties, temperature regulation, moisture control properties, moisture wicking properties, far-infrared shielding or enhancing properties, etc. In these and other embodiments, any of these properties may be achieved by treating the material with a treatment, for example, with an anti-microbial or anti-bacterial treatment (including silver ions/nano technology), with a sun protection treatment (including protection from UVA/UVB rays, or a sun protection factor (SPF) of ten to fifty), etc., therefore it was considered as coating.
Regarding claim 15, Niedrich discloses a protective headwear wherein the first side portion and the second side portion extend a first distance from the bottom edge (Fig. A W1), and the back portion extends a second distance from the bottom edge (Fig. A W2), wherein the second distance is longer than the first distance (See Fig. A).
Regarding claim 16, Niedrich discloses a protective headwear wherein the second distance (W2) has a distance.
Niedrich does not disclose that the second distance (W2) is about 9 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second distance (W2) about 9 inches in order to customize the intended us of the device, for example a protective headwear made for children may require shorter distance than a device made for adults., since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 17, Niedrich discloses a protective headwear wherein the first distance (W1) has a distance.
Niedrich does not disclose that the first distance (W1) is about 5 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second distance (W1) about 5 inches in order to customize the intended us of the device, for example a protective headwear made for children may require shorter distance than a device made for adults., since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 18, Niedrich discloses a protective headwear wherein the back portion has a width (Fig. A identifier W3).
Niedrich does not disclose that the back portion has a width of about 10.5 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the back portion width (W3) about 10.5 inches in order to customize the intended us of the device, for example a protective headwear made for children may require narrower back portion than a device made for adults., since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claims 5 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niedrich et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0058089 A1) in view of Berry et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2,578,219) and further view of Parker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0013485 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Niedrich as modified by Berry discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
they do not disclose that the protective material comprises a 4-way stretch fabric.
However, Parker et al. “Parker” teaches yet another protective headwear (Figs. 1A-2B and 9A identifiers 100 and 900) having a protective material (106, 906) the protective material comprises a 4-way stretch fabric (para. 0055).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have manufactured Niedrich and Berry device with the protective material comprises a 4-way stretch fabric as taught by Parker to enhance comfort, durability and free of unrestricted movement because it stretches both vertically and horizontally.
Regarding claim 19, Niedrich as modified by Berry and Parker discloses a protective headwear further comprising a sweatband (104 Parker), wherein the protective material (106) is coupled to the sweatband (See Fig. 1A of Parker).
Regarding claim 20, Niedrich as modified by Berry and Parker discloses a protective headwear further comprising a sweatband (104 Parker), wherein the protective material (106) is coupled to the main body between an interior surface of the main body and the sweatband (See Fig. 4C of Parker when the device is modified).
Claim 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niedrich et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0058089 A1) in view of Berry et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2,578,219) and further view of Cho (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0282448 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Niedrich as modified by Berry discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
they do not disclose that the main body and the protective material comprises nylon, polyester, and polyurethane spandex.
However, Cho teaches yet another protective headwear comprises nylon, polyester, and polyurethane spandex (para. 0042).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use nylon, polyester, and polyurethane spandex as taught by Cho as the material for the main body and the protective material. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because nylon, polyester, and polyurethane spandex were well-known material for wearable protective gear as taught by Cho.
Regarding claim 9, Niedrich as modified by Berry discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Cho discloses the material ranges in para. 0042.
they do not disclose that the protective material comprises between 65% and 85% nylon, between 4% and 24% polyester, and between 1% and 21% polyurethane spandex.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the protective material comprises between 65% and 85% nylon, between 4% and 24% polyester, and between 1% and 21% polyurethane spandex in order to obtain optimum configuration and to maximize comfort, durability and functionality of the device, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 10, Niedrich as modified by Berry discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Cho discloses the material ranges in para. 0042.
they do not disclose that the protective material comprises between 70% and 80% nylon, between 9% and 19% polyester, and between 5% and 15% polyurethane spandex.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the protective material comprises between 70% and 80% nylon, between 9% and 19% polyester, and between 5% and 15% polyurethane spandex in order to obtain optimum configuration and to maximize comfort, durability and functionality of the device, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 11, Niedrich as modified by Berry discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Cho discloses the material ranges in para. 0042.
they do not disclose that the main body and the protective material comprises between 70% and 80% nylon, between 9% and 19% polyester, and between 5% and 15% polyurethane spandex.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the main body and the protective material comprises between 70% and 80% nylon, between 9% and 19% polyester, and between 5% and 15% polyurethane spandex in order to obtain optimum configuration and to maximize comfort, durability and functionality of the device, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 12, Niedrich as modified by Berry discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Cho discloses the material ranges in para. 0042.
they do not disclose that the main body and the protective material comprise 75% nylon, 14% polyester, and 11% polyurethane spandex.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the main body and the protective material comprises between 70% and 80% nylon, between 9% and 19% polyester, and between 5% and 15% polyurethane spandex in order to obtain optimum configuration and to maximize comfort, durability and functionality of the device, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Niedrich as modified by Berry discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Cho discloses the material ranges in para. 0042.
they do not disclose that the main body and the protective material include between 79% and 83% nylon, between 9% and 13% polyester, and between 6% and 10% polyurethane spandex.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the main body and the protective material include between 79% and 83% nylon, between 9% and 13% polyester, and between 6% and 10% polyurethane spandex in order to obtain optimum configuration and to maximize comfort, durability and functionality of the device, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 14, Niedrich as modified by Berry discloses the invention substantially as claimed above.
Cho discloses the material ranges in para. 0042.
they do not disclose that the main body and the protective material comprise 81% nylon, 11% polyester, and 8% polyurethane spandex.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the main body and the protective material comprise 81% nylon, 11% polyester, and 8% polyurethane spandex in order to obtain optimum configuration and to maximize comfort, durability and functionality of the device, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered (See PTO-892) pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED ANNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-5 PM 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, 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.
/KHALED ANNIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732