Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 19/072,892

COMPREHENSIVE SUN PROTECTIVE HEAD COVERING

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 06, 2025
Examiner
ANNIS, KHALED
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
491 granted / 870 resolved
-13.6% vs TC avg
Strong +50% interview lift
Without
With
+50.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
894
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.4%
-34.6% vs TC avg
§103
40.2%
+0.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
§112
25.4%
-14.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 870 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 3/6/2025 in which claims 1-7 were presented for examination. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. An insert A magnetic insert Bill depth greater than the depth of said brim 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fulper et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0055618 A1). PNG media_image1.png 439 600 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, Fulper et al. “Fulper” discloses a head covering (Figs. 1-2 identifier 100), comprising: a cranial covering portion (110) having a circumferential perimeter (the edge at marking 121) configured (capable) to encircle the head of a wearer (when worn); a flexible brim (See annotated Fig. A above) extending from the perimeter of said cranial covering portion (See Fig. A), said brim extending incompletely around the perimeter of said cranial covering portion (See Fig. A because it does not completely encircle the head of the wearer) and having a depth no greater than 15 cm (para. 0019 discloses 2 inches in depth or width which is 5.08 CM meeting the claimed range); and a bill (See Fig. A) extending from the perimeter of said cranial covering portion (110 as shown in Fig. A), said bill being configured (capable) to shade a face of the wearer (when worn), said bill (See Fig. A) being constructed from a rigid, bend-resistant material (para. 0022 discloses “brim 120 may have a longer, baseball cap extension in the front to better cover the face” which was interpreted that the brim and bill are made of the same material, para. 0018 discloses that the material is plastic which is interpreted as rigid bend-resistant material as evident by the applicant own specification), said bill (See Fig. A) having a lower surface that is concave in a vertical plane (Fig. 2 illustrates a concave lower surface but it is shown clearer in Fig. 3). Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Fulper discloses a head covering wherein said bill includes an insert constructed from cardboard (See para. 0002). Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Fulper discloses a head covering wherein said bill has a depth (width) greater than the depth of said brim (See Fig. 2). Regarding claim 7, Fulper discloses a head covering wherein the depth of said brim is no greater than 10 cm ((para. 0019 discloses 2 inches in depth or width which is 5.08 CM meeting the claimed range). 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. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulper et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0055618 A1) in view of Moshier (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0168708 A1). Regarding claim 3, Fulper discloses a head covering wherein at least the cranial covering portion (110) is constructed from material that substantially blocks ultraviolet transmission, para. 0017. Fulper does not explicitly disclose that the cranial covering portion is constructed from a UPF 50+ sun resistant material. However, Moshier teaches yet another head covering (Fig. 3 identifier 10) having a cranial covering portion (crown) (12) constructed from UPF 50+ sun resistant material (para. 0046). 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 Fulper device with the cranial covering portion is constructed from a UPF 50+ sun resistant material as taught by Moshier in order to enhance protection to the wearer from harmful sun rays by providing maximum protection from ultraviolet light. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulper et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0055618 A1) in view of Young (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0143799 A1) as best understood. Regarding claim 4, Fulper discloses the invention substantially as claimed above. Fulper does not disclose further comprising a magnetic insert configured to retain a golf ball mark. However, Young teaches yet another head covering (See Fig. 1) having a magnetic insert (24) configured to retain a golf ball mark (para. 0016). 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 Fulper device with a magnetic insert configured to retain a golf ball mark as taught by Young in order to enhance securement of the golf ball marker to avoid the loss of the ball marker when not in use. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulper et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0055618 A1) in view of Davis (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0404997 A1). Regarding claim 5, Fulper discloses the invention substantially as claimed above. Fulper does not disclose that the depth (width) of said brim is equal to a depth of said bill around the entirety of said brim. However, Davis teaches yet noter head covering (See Fig. 2G) having a brim (235) and a bill (230), wherein the depth (width) of said brim is equal to a depth of said bill around the entirety of said brim (See Fig. 2G). 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 Fulper device with the depth (width) of said brim is equal to a depth of said bill around the entirety of said brim as taught by Davis in order to a more appealing look having a straight line. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 06, 2025
Application Filed
Dec 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593886
Energy Absorbing Protective Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12575633
ROTATING BODY FIXING MEANS FOR HELMET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569052
ARTICLE HOLDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12569023
ADJUSTABLE HELMET LINER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566049
BODY ARMOR SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+50.5%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 870 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month