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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on March 18, 2026 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1 and 16-17 have been amended; and claims 20-21 are canceled. Accordingly, claims 1-19 and 22-23 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1-19 and 22-23.
Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed December 18, 2025, are hereby withdrawn:
Double Patenting rejection (due to the approved terminal disclaimer);
Objections to the drawings;
Claim objections under 35 USC 112(b).
Specification
The amendment filed March 18, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Para. 0021 has been amended to recite, “For example, the set of complementary components of the fastening mechanisms can be disposed above the inner band of crown 101(see, e.g., the embodiment depicted in FIG. 6 in which the ends of back strap 103 each include a button hole 109 and crown 101 has complementary buttons 107 disposed at the edges of crown 101 but not on the inner band).” While “buttons” were originally disclosed in para. 0024, buttonholes were never disclosed and the use of buttons does not definitively mean there are corresponding buttonholes as buttons can be secured by other means such as loops and as the term buttons can be used when disclosing snaps, push buttons, or badges;
Para. 0023 has been amended to recite, “wherein the first and second crowns have differing visual appearances such as different colors, patterns, logos, designs, or indicia.” While there is support for the crowns having differing visual appearances, there is no disclosure that such different visual appearances is difference in colors, patterns, logos, designs or indicia.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 16-17 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 16 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the crown includes multiple panels stitched together.” As claim 1 recites, “a crown including one or more panels”, it is unclear if the multiple panels are in addition to one or more panels or if the one or more panels now comprises multiple panels.
Claim 17 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the crown includes only two panels.” It is unclear if “two panels” is referring to the multiple panels from claim 16 or in addition to the multiple panels, or the one or more panels from claim 1 or in addition to the one or more panels.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 11-13, 15-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moroy (US 2019/0289948) in view of Lacy (US 2020/0268085).
Regarding claim 1, Moroy discloses a reversible headwear (10) adapted to be worn by a user (as can be under stood from Fig. 1-7), comprising: a crown (34) including one or more panels (38) adapted to only partly cover the user's head (as can be seen in Figs. 1-7, the crown does not cover and entirety of the wearer’s head, as it only covers an upper portion of the wearer’s head, further it has an opening at 110 revealing an additional part of the wearer’s head), wherein: the crown has an inner side (see Fig. 4) adapted to face the user's head (as understood in the normal wear of a baseball style hat) and an opposing outer side (see in Figs. 1-3); the crown includes a first crown end portion at a right-hand side and a second crown end portion at a left-hand side (see annotated Fig. 4); the crown includes an inner band (112) extending on the inner side of the crown from the first crown end portion to the second crown end portion (as seen in Figs. 1 and 4), the inner band having an upper edge, first and second band ends (see annotated Fig. 4), and a surface configured to face the user's head (see annotated Fig. 4); the one or more panels of the crown extend upwardly past the upper edge of the inner band (as can be seen in Figs. 1-4); a visor (18) attached to and extending outwardly from a bottom edge of the outer side of the crown (as understood from Fig. 4); and a removable headband (140) including a first headband end portion (144), a second headband end portion (154), and one or more stretchable components (as the body of 140 itself is made from a stretchable material, see paras. 0006 and 0040), wherein the first and second headband end portions are removably attached to the first and second crown end portions, respectively, by one or more fastening mechanisms (146/156, Examiner notes “fastening mechanisms” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and the fastening mechanisms 146/156 of Moroy “include, but are not limited to, hook and loop fasteners (Velcro®), clips, a strip having buttons and button holes” (Moroy para. 0034) which are equivalent to Applicant’s fastening mechanisms as found in para. 0024 of the specification); wherein the reversible headwear is adapted to be selectively worn in either a forward position in which the crown is positioned on the user's forehead or a reverse position in which the removable headband is positioned on the user's forehead (as the headwear can be worn in any direction the wearer desires).
Moroy does not expressly disclose wherein the visor extends continuously between and is coterminous with the first crown end portion and the second crown end portion.
Lacy teaches adjustable headwear wherein the visor (102) extends continuously between and is coterminous with the first crown end portion (rearmost end portion of 108a in Fig. 6) and the second crown end portion (rearmost end portion of 108b in Fig. 6) (see Figs. 6 where 102 extends continuously from the rear end portion of 108a to the rear end portion of 108a, and is conterminous with these end portions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the visor of Moro around to extend around the crown to the end portions of the crown, as taught by Lacy, in order to provide additional shade to the head of the wearer, thereby preventing sunburn.
Regarding claim 2, the modified headwear of Moroy discloses wherein each of the one or more fastening mechanisms is selected from one or more of a group consisting of: a snap-fit fastener, a snap-on fastener, a button, a hook-and-eye fastener, a clasp, a buckle, a hook-and-loop fastener, and a hook-and-chain fastener (as Moroy can “include, but are not limited to, hook and loop fasteners (Velcro®), clips, a strip having buttons and button holes” (Moroy para. 0034)).
Regarding claim 4, the modified headwear of Moroy discloses wherein at least one of the one or more fastening mechanisms includes a button (see para. 0034).
Regarding claim 5, the modified headwear of Moroy discloses wherein at least one of the one or more fastening mechanisms includes a hook-and-loop fastener (see para. 0034).
Regarding claim 7, the modified headwear of Moroy discloses wherein an entirety of the removable headband (140) comprises the one or more stretchable components (as the body of 140 itself is made from a stretchable material and no additional materials are disclosed, see paras. 0006 and 0040 and as the fastening mechanisms are separate structure inasmuch as the fastening mechanisms of the instant application are a separate structure) .
Regarding claim 8, the modified headwear of Moroy discloses wherein a respective component of a fastening mechanism among the one or more fastening mechanisms is disposed on each of the first and second headband end portions (as seen in Fig. 4, 146 is on end portion 144 and 156 is on end portion 154).
Regarding claim 11, the modified headwear of Moroy discloses wherein the first and second headband end portions include the one or more stretchable components (as 144 and 154 are part of the body of 140 which is made from a stretchable material, see paras. 0006 and 0040).
Regarding claim 12, the modified headwear of Moroy discloses wherein the removable headband incorporates one or more logos (142).
Regarding claim 13, the modified headwear of Moroy discloses wherein: the removable headband is a first removable headband; and the reversible headwear includes at least a second removable headband, wherein the first and second removable headbands have differing visual appearances (see Fig. 2 and para. 0046).
Regarding claim 15, the modified headwear of Moroy discloses wherein the one or more fastening mechanisms removably attach the removable headband to the first and second band end portions (via 146/156 removably attaching to 130/132 affixed to the surface of the sweatband, see annotated Fig. 4 and para. 0035).
Regarding claim 16, the modified headwear of Moroy discloses wherein the one or more panels of the crown comprise multiple panels (38) stitched together (via 42, see para. 0033).
Regarding claim 18, the modified headwear of Moroy discloses wherein the crown includes one or more eyelets formed therein (eyelets 26, see Figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 19, the modified headwear of Moroy discloses wherein the visor has a curved configuration (as seen in Fig. 4 where the front edge of the visor 18 is curved).
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Moroy and Lacy, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Proctor (US 5862523).
Regarding claim 3, the modified headwear of Moroy discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the one or more fastening mechanisms includes a snap.
Proctor teaches a modular headwear system with a removable headband wherein at least one of the one or more fastening mechanisms (118/134) includes a snap (see col. 9, lines 60-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the fastening mechanisms of the modified headwear of Moroy with the fastening mechanisms as taught by Proctor, as a simple substitution of one well known fastening mechanism for another in order to yield the predictable result of securely fastening the band to the crown. See MPEP 2143 B.
Regarding claim 6, the modified headwear of Moroy discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the one or more fastening mechanisms includes a hook and eye fastener.
Proctor teaches a modular headwear system with a removable headband wherein at least one of the one or more fastening mechanisms (118/134) includes a hook and eye fastener (see col. 9, lines 60-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the fastening mechanisms of the modified headwear of Moroy with the fastening mechanisms as taught by Proctor, as a simple substitution of one well known fastening mechanism for another in order to yield the predictable result of securely fastening the band to the crown. See MPEP 2143 B.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Moroy and Lacy, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong (US 2013/0111650).
Regarding claim 9, the modified headwear of Moroy discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein a respective component of a fastening mechanism of each of the one or more fastening mechanisms is disposed on the crown but not on the inner band.
Hong teaches an article of headwear with removable headband wherein a respective component (21 and 22) of a fastening mechanism (21/31 and 22/32) of each of the one or more fastening mechanisms is disposed on the crown (1) but not on the inner band (as no inner band is shown or disclosed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the fastening components to the outside of the crown of the modified headwear of Moroy as taught by Hong in order to allow the band to be more quickly removed and used as an alternate device such as a hair tie.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Moroy and Lacy, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schlabach (US 2020/0068974).
Regarding claim 10, the modified headwear of Moroy discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein a width of the removable headband is between 1/2 inch and 4 inches.
Schlabach teaches stabilized headwear wherein a width of the removable headband (16) is between 1/2 inch and 4 inches (see para. 0045 where the headband can be .5 to 1 inch or any suitable width).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the headband of the modified headwear of Moroy between ¼ and 4 inches as taught by Schlabach in order to be wide enough that it does not dig into the user’s head when tightened and since it has been held that 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. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Moroy and Lacy, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Estopare (US 2024/0358107).
Regarding claim 14, the modified headwear of Moroy discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein: the crown is a first crown; and the reversible headwear includes at least a second crown, wherein the first and second crowns have differing visual appearances.
Estopare teaches an interchangeable and multi-functional hat device wherein: the crown (102) is a first crown; and the reversible headwear includes at least a second crown, wherein the first and second crowns have differing visual appearances (see Fig. 3, paras. 0028, and 0044-0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include different crowns with different appearances in the reversible headwear of the modified headwear of Moroy, as taught by Estopare in order to allow “for endless opportunities of easily changing appearance when wearing a hat” (para. 0006 of Estopare) and to enable “a hat user to personally customize the appearance of a hat by choosing between and implementing a variety of interchangeable components” (para. 0011 of Estopare).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Moroy and Lacy, as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Tunison (US 2018/0325200).
Regarding claim 17, the modified headwear of Moroy discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 17 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the multiple panels consist of only two panels.
Tunison teaches a hat with an open back wherein the multiple panels of the crown (11) consist of only two panels (see para. 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the crown of the modified headwear of Moroy to only have two panels as taught by Tunison as it “provides for a back of the user's head to be exposed. This design may accommodate the user's hair, provides for their head to be exposed which may be cooler for the user during warm weather, and/or also provides an attractive look” (see para. 0031).
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Moroy and Lacy, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Josephs (US 2436434).
Regarding claim 22, the modified headwear of Moroy discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the fastening mechanisms includes a binding post and screw.
Josephs teaches an interchangeable hat with a band wherein at least one of the fastening mechanisms includes a binding post (15) and screw (14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the fastening mechanisms of the modified headwear of Moroy with the fastening mechanisms as taught by Joesphs, so that the fastening mechanisms can be easily replaced and swapped out with different fastening mechanisms in order to change the look of the hat.
Regarding claim 23, the modified headwear of Moroy discloses wherein the screw (14 of Josephs) includes a decorative head (see col. 5, lines 10-15 of Josephs) but does not expressly disclose the head comprises a concho. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the decorative head of the modified headwear of Moroy to include a concho for aesthetic purposes in order to appear to a particular target market and since change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results and a change in aesthetic (ornamental) design generally will not support patentability. See MPEP 2144.04.
PNG
media_image1.png
904
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 (Moroy)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed March 18, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant submits that the dependent claims are patentable based on their dependencies from claim 1; however, as discussed in the rejection below and in the arguments above, claim 1 is not allowable over the prior art. Therefore, these arguments have not been found convincing and the rejections of the depending claims have been maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 on 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