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 June 30, 2026 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-4, 6, and 8-9 have been amended; claim 10 is canceled.
Examiner notes claims 11-20 were in the original claim set filed March 31, 2025, and were withdrawn by Examiner in the Office Action of January 21, 2026, but do not appear in amendments filed with the written response received on June 30, 2026. To be a compliant amendment, a complete listing of the claims must be present and each claim must be provided with the proper status identifier (Note: the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following status identifiers: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Previously presented), (New), (Not entered), (Withdrawn) and (Withdrawn-currently amended)). For purposes of Examiner, Examiner has considered claims 11-20 as cancelled as they were previously withdrawn by Examiner as they were drawn to a non-elected invention.
Accordingly, claims 1-9 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1-9.
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 elastic element stitched in more than one shape (claim 3; as only the circular shape is shown) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites, “A headgear comprising a first side…” which uses the legal phraseology “comprising”. 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
Claims 11-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The listing of the claims should recite, “10-20. (Cancelled)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1, 3, and 9 (and claims 2 and 4-8 at least for depending from a rejected claim) 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 1 is indefinite as it recites, “and wherein the one or more coupling elements are configured to lock a first end of the headgear with a second end of the headgear and lock the excess portion of the headgear.” As claim 1 recites, “one or more coupling elements integrated at either ends of the second side of the headgear”, it is unclear if a first end and a second end are referring to the “either ends or the second side of the headgear” or to different/additional ends of the headgear. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a first end” and “a second end” to be referring to the either ends of the second side of the headgear.
Claim 3 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the at least one elastic element is stitched on the first side and arrayed on the headgear in one or more shapes, wherein the one or more shapes comprise at least a circular shape.” As “arrayed” generally means “to arrange in order”, it is unclear what is meant by “arrayed on the headgear” within claim 3. Is the stitching orderly or is “arrayed” referring to the placement? If “arrayed” is referring to the placement, how can a singular circular shape be arranged in order? If there are multiple shapes, what arrangement would be considered orderly? While this is disclosed in para. 0027 of the specification, there is no further description, and additional shapes of the elastic element on the headgear are not shown. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite.
Claim 9 is indefinite as it recites, “wherein the at least one elastic element is braided to allow the user to improve gripping force and snugly fit the headgear around the head of the user.” Since claim 1 recites, “at least one elastic element stitched on the first side of the headgear”, it is unclear how the elastic element being braided can “allow the user to improve gripping force and snugly fit the headgear around the head of the user”. As best as can be understood, the elastic element is not removable or interchangeable by the user, so it is unclear how the using a braided elastic element allows the user to affect the gripping force or fit and the specification does not offer further explanation and simply recites the same limitation in para. 0034. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the limitation to mean, “wherein the at least one elastic element is braided
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McRae (US 2015/0096186) in view of Hall (US 5790986).
Regarding claim 1, McRae discloses a headgear comprising: a first side (inner side facing the head of the wearer, not shown but understood from Figs. 1-2) having an absorbent material (see para. 0021 where the body 12 is a towel and para. 0024 where the towel may be all cotton, which is known as an absorbent material, and as the body is made of all cotton then both sides of it are absorbent); a second side opposite to the first side (second side being the side shown in Figs. 1-4, the outer facing side) and configured to display indicia (see para. 0024 and note that as the body is made of cotton, and cotton can be printed on, then either side can display indicia, further see para. 0002 and 0011 where the headgear enables display of indicia); at least one elastic element (14) stitched (secured by stitches, see para. 0021) on the first side of the headgear (see para. 0021 where the elastic band 12 may be placed on the inner face of the towel 12) and configured to enable the headgear to snugly fit around the head of the user (disclosed in para. 0016).
McRae does not expressly disclose one or more coupling elements integrated at either ends of the second side of the headgear, wherein each of the one or more coupling elements is configured to securely lock and fasten the headgear over the head of the user; wherein the headgear is folded around the at least one elastic element and the one or more coupling elements engage one another such that an excess portion of the headgear wraps around the head of the user, and wherein the one or more coupling elements are configured to lock a first end of the headgear with a second end of the headgear and lock the excess portion of the headgear.
Hall teaches an article of headwear (10) with a head engaging band (14) and a sheet of material (16) comprising one or more coupling elements (30; interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and 30 is disclosed as hook and loop in col. 2, lines 52-53 or buttons or snaps in col. 3, line 65-col. 4, line 1, which is equivalent to Applicant’s coupling element of velcro, button or snap) integrated at either ends of the second side of the headgear (see Figs. 4 and 9 where at least one 30 is at a first end of the outer facing side), wherein each of the one or more coupling elements is configured to securely lock and fasten the headgear over the head of the user (for example as seen in Fig. 21); and wherein the one or more coupling elements are configured to lock a first end of the headgear with a second end of the headgear and lock the excess portion of the headgear (as can be seen in Fig. 20-22 of Hall).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add coupling elements to the headwear of McRae as taught by Hall so that “the material may be adjusted or arranged to protect the wearer's neck and/or face, the fastening means being arranged on the material such that the material may be drawn to a number of positions in front of the wearers neck and/or head and/or face and the material fastened together releasably in a number of arrangements as desired by the wearer” (see col. 1, lines 38-44 of Hall).
When used in combination, wherein the headgear is folded around the at least one elastic element (14 of McRae) and the one or more coupling elements (30 of Hall) engage one another such that an excess portion of the headgear wraps around the head of the user (as the headgear is capable of being folded upward over the elastic element and the ends coupled together with the excess wrapping around the head, such as shown in Figs. 20-22 of Hall).
Examiner notes that italicized limitations in the prior art rejections are functional and do not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead require an ability to so perform and/or function. As the prior art discloses the structure of the headgear, there would be a reasonable expectation for the headgear to perform such functions, as Examiner has explained after each functional limitation.
Regarding claim 2, the modified headgear of McRae discloses wherein the first side (inner side facing the head of the wearer, not shown but understood from Figs. 1-2) is configured to contact the head of the user when the headgear is worn by the user (as understood from Figs. 1-2, the inner side contact the head of the user).
Regarding claim 3, the modified headgear of McRae discloses wherein the at least one elastic element (14) is stitched on the first side (see claim 1 above) and arrayed on the headgear in one or more shapes, wherein the one or more shapes comprises at least a circular shape (see Figs. 3-4 where shape of the attached elastic element is circular, also disclosed as circular in para. 0021, and is considered an orderly arrangement as best as can be understood).
Regarding claim 4, the modified headgear of McRae discloses wherein the second side is configured to display the indicia representing at least one or more sports teams and one or more commercial brands (see para. 0024). Examiner notes that “indicia” in the claims is a limitation of printed matter. Once it is determined that the limitation is directed to printed matter, Examiner must then determine if the matter is functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate, and only if the answer is ‘no’ is the printed matter owed no patentable weight. In this case, where the product (second side of the headgear) merely serves as a support for printed matter, and no functional relationship exists since there is no new relation of printed matter to physical structure. The claim(s) as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product and the printed matter is given no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05.
Regarding claim 5, the modified headgear of McRae discloses wherein the at least one elastic element (14) is stitched (see para. 0021) in a manner that allows the at least one elastic element to extend around the head of the user (as disclosed in para. 0021).
Regarding claim 6 , the modified headgear of McRae discloses wherein the one or more coupling elements (30 of Hall) correspond to at least one of button or snap.
(hook and loop is disclosed in col. 2, lines 52-53 of Hall, but col. 3, line 65-col. 4, line 1 indicates the hook and loop can instead be press studs (i.e. snaps) or buttons).
Regarding claim 7, the modified headgear of McRae discloses wherein the absorbent material (cotton towel) enables to maintain comfortable temperature around the head during one or more activities performed by the user (as cotton is known to be a highly breathable fabric and absorbent thereby pulling sweat away from the skin to evaporate and cool the wearer when worn on the head during activities).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of McRae and Hall, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lunsford (US 9138025).
Regarding claim 8, the modified headgear of McRae discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the headgear is perforated.
Lunsford teaches a head and hair covering (101) wherein the headgear is perforated (via apertures 102, see Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perforate the material of the modified headgear of McRae as taught by Lunsford in order “to permit ventilation” (see col. 3, lines 39-40 of Lunsford) thereby further cooling the user.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of McRae and Hall, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Solce (US 2022/0087845).
Regarding claim 9, the modified headgear of McRae discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one elastic element is braided to allow the user to improve gripping force and snugly fit the headgear around the head of the user.
Solce teaches headwear for compression (100) wherein the at least one elastic element (101) is braided (see para. 0037) to allow the user to improve gripping force and snugly fit the headgear around the head of the user (as it is braided, gripping force is improved and the fit can be snug, as best as can be interpreted, see 35 USC 112(b) rejections above).
Therefore, 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 elastic element of the modified headwear of McRae of a braided elastic as taught by Solce as braided elastic has a high tensile strength to withstand use without losing its shape for controlled stretch with good recovery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 30, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. 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. However, Examiner notes claim 1 was amended to add the limitations of now cancelled claim 10 awe well as the new limitation, “wherein the headgear is folded around the at least one elastic element and the one or more coupling elements engage one another such that an excess portion of the headgear wraps around the head of the user” which is a recitation of the intended use/function of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use/function, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, when the coupling elements of Hall are added to the headgear of McRae, then the headgear is capable of being folded around the elastic element and the coupling elements are capable of engaging each other such that the excess portion wraps around the head of the user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, No (US 2008/0000014) teaches a towel adapted to be wearable over the head, and Sharrad (US 20017/007360) and Crickmore (US 5994647) teaches pieces of material attached over headwear to shield the wearer.
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 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
