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 Claims
This Office Action is in response to Claims 1-3, filed March 14, 2025, which are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1 shows 4 different and separate structures but not how they are interconnected.
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.
Abstract/Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is less than 50 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should recite, “a pair of detachable connector members, each detachable connector member of the pair of detachable connector members including…”;
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the neck" in line 1 of p. 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-3 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 2 recites the limitation "said interior" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “said interior” is referring to the interior volume recited in line one or a different interior such as an interior surface.
Claim 3 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein said first and second connector members of said crown portion of said baseball cap are formed as snap connectors; wherein said first and second connector members of said pouch are formed as a snap connectors; and wherein said first and second connector members of said pair of detachable connector members are formed as snap connectors, such that said pair of detachable connector members can releasably attach said pouch to said baseball cap via said snap connectors.” First, it is unclear of the first and second connector members of the pouch are a snap connector or snap connectors. Second, as the final line recites, “via said snap connectors”, it is unclear which snap connectors are being referred to as it appears 8 different snap connectors are claimed. Examiner respectfully suggests reciting which snap connectors engage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 2-3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The claims are allowed over the prior art of record as none of them, alone or in combination, disclose a baseball cap with connector members on the left and right back sides of the crown, a pouch with connector members on left and right sides, and a pair of elongated detachable connector members with a first end having a connecter member that releasably connects with the connector members on the crown, and a second end having a connector member that releasably connects with the connector members on the pouch. The closest prior art is Swank (US D835990) and Cowell (US 6857134). Swank teaches all the limitation except the neck shade being a pouch and the connector members at the ends of the pair of elongated detachable connector members releasably connecting with the connector members on the crown and the pouch respectively. Cowell teaches a detachable neck shade that is also a pouch, but also does not teach the connector members at the ends of the pair of elongated detachable connector members releasably connecting with the connector members on the crown and the pouch respectively. Prior art such as Chapman (US 2017/0238641) which teaches an elongated connector member with a connector member on one end releasably connected to a connector member on the cap, Plon (US 2018/0055127) which teaches connector members on the rear of the hat as well as elongated connector members with one end detachably connected, and Ronquillo (US 5666668) which teaches which teaches connector members on the rear of the hat as well as elongated connector members with one end detachably connected and a detachable connector member on the other end that attaches to the other elongated connector member to create a chin strap. However, modifying Swank or Cowell with analogous prior art to have the claimed structure would be hindsight reconstruction based on Applicant’s own disclosure, therefore the claims are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0673. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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 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.
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732