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 February 19, 2026 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claim 7 has been amended; claims 1-6 have been cancelled; and claims 21-26 have been added.
Claims 8, 15, and 17-19 are withdrawn, by Examiner, from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant’s election of Species VI, Figs. 11-13B, in the reply filed on October 3, 2025 was treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)), because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement.
Claim 8 recites, “wherein the cape includes a notch disposed at a rear of the cape”, however the notch is disclosed in para. 0055 and Fig. 4B and therefore specific to Species II (Figs. 4A-4B) and the notch is not shown or disclosed in elected Species VI, Figs. 11-13B;
Claim 15 recites, “wherein the cape includes one or more fasteners positioned adjacent to a peripheral edge of the cape, wherein the one or more fasteners are configured to connect respective portions of the peripheral edge of the cape”, however the fasteners are disclosed in para. 0055 and Fig. 4A and therefore specific to Species II (Figs. 4A-4B) and the notch is not shown or disclosed in elected Species VI, Figs. 11-13B;
Claim 17 recites, “further including a cord extending from the pouch”, however as claim 7 recites the pouch being on the front side of the crown, claim 17 and its dependents 18-19 no longer reads on elected Species VI, Figs. 11-13B. Para. 0054 of the specification indicates the cored may be disposed within pouch 410 which as shown in Fig. 4A is a pouch on the rear side the crown, and as elected Species VI, Figs. 11-13B, does not have a pouch on the rear side of the crown, the limitation is not applicable to the elected embodiment.
Accordingly, claims 7-26 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 7, 9-14, 16, and 20-26.
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 22 and 26 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.
Claims 22 and 26 are indefinite as each recites, “wherein the cape resembles/is shaped as a duck bill”. It is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art can ascertain to any requisite degree what shapes can be included or excluded by the claim. Further, as claim 21 recites the cape “tapering inward from the first end to the second end”, it is unclear how the cape can both taper from the first end to the second and also be shaped like a duck bill which is generally wide, flat, and doesn’t taper until the rounded end. Therefore the metes and bounds of the limitation are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chu (US 6131201).
Regarding claim 7, Chu discloses an article of headwear (Figs. 1-4), including: a crown (1) including an exterior surface (surface shown in Fig. 1), an interior surface (not shown but is the opposite side of the surface shown in Fig. 1, i.e. the interior dome shape of the crown), a front side, a first side, a second side disposed opposite the first side, and a back side disposed opposite the front side (see annotated Fig. 4), wherein the crown includes an apex disposed at a topmost point of the crown (see annotated Fig. 4) and a lower margin forming a peripheral edge of the crown (see annotated Fig. 3); a bill (2) extending outwardly away from the front side of the crown (as shown in annotated Fig. 4); a cape (7) coupled to the lower margin of the crown (via 3/71), the cape extending downwardly away from the crown (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 4); and a pouch (4) disposed on the front side of the crown and coupled to the exterior surface of the crown (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 4), the pouch extending from the first side of the crown to the second side of the crown (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 4).
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) 7, 9-12, 20-23, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banffy (WO 2015/031963) in view of Buri (US 2016/0353823).
Regarding claim 7, Banffy disclose an article of headwear (1), including: a crown (2) including an exterior surface (surface seen in Figs. 1-2), an interior surface (not shown but is the interior of the dome), a front side, a first side, a second side disposed opposite the first side, and a back side disposed opposite the front side, wherein the crown includes an apex disposed at a topmost point of the crown and a lower margin forming a peripheral edge of the crown (see annotated Fig. 2 and note the lower margin/peripheral edge extends entirely around the circumference of the crown); a bill (see annotated Fig. 2) extending outwardly away from the front side of the crown (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 2); and a pouch (4) disposed on the front side of the crown and coupled to the exterior surface of the crown (as seen in annotated Fig. 2), the pouch extending from the first side of the crown to the second side of the crown (as seen in annotated Fig. 2).
Banffy does not expressly disclose a cape coupled to the lower margin of the crown, the cape extending downwardly away from the crown.
Buri teaches headwear with a deployable cape (2), the cape coupled to the lower margin of the crown (upper end of 2 as shown in Fig. 2 being coupled to rim of the crown as discloses in para. 0025), the cape extending downwardly away from the crown (as understood from Fig. 2).
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 a neck cape to the modified headwear of Banffy, as taught by Buri, thus “offering the wearer the option to selectively transform the baseball cap by deploying the section of material from the rear of the baseball cap and securely fitting the second of the material over the wearer’s head, ears, and neck” (see para. 0005 of Buri).
Regarding claim 9, the modified headwear of Banffy discloses wherein the pouch includes a first end, a second end, a first edge, and a second edge, the first end disposed on the first side of the crown and the second end disposed on the second side of the crown (see annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, the modified headwear of Banffy discloses wherein the first edge is attached to the lower margin of the crown, thereby forming an integral bottom edge of the article of headwear (see annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, the modified headwear of Banffy discloses wherein the second edge is attached at each of the first end of the pouch and the second end of the pouch (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 2, the pouch is connected as seams 5 then at least the end portions of the second edge are attached at the first and second ends via seam 5).
Regarding claim 12, the modified headwear of Banffy discloses wherein the second edge is configured to open the pouch, thereby providing access to inner portions of the pouch (via 9, see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, the modified headwear of Banffy discloses wherein the cape (2 of Buri) is comprised of a microfiber polyester (see para. 0025 of Buri).
Regarding claim 21, Banffy discloses an article of headwear (1), including: a crown (2) including an exterior surface (surface seen in Figs. 1-2), an interior surface (not shown but is the interior of the dome), a front side, a first side, a second side disposed opposite the first side, and a back side disposed opposite the front side, wherein the crown includes an apex disposed at a topmost point of the crown and a lower margin forming a peripheral edge of the crown (see annotated Fig. 2 and note the lower margin/peripheral edge extends entirely around the circumference of the crown); a bill (see annotated Fig. 2) extending outwardly away from the front side of the crown (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 2); a second pouch (4 as shown in Figs. 1-2) disposed on the exterior surface of the crown (as seen in Figs. 1-2), the second pouch disposed on the front side of the crown and extending from the first side of the crown to the second side of the crown (as seen in annotated Fig. 2), the second pouch including a second slit (opening closed by zipper 9) configured to provide entry and closure to the second pouch (as seen in Fig. 2).
The embodiment of Figs. 1-2 of Banffy does not expressly disclose a first pouch disposed on the exterior surface of the crown, the first pouch disposed on the first side of the crown, the first pouch including a first slit configured to provide entry and closure to the first pouch; and a cape including a first end coupled to the lower margin of the crown and a second end disposed opposite the first end, the cape extending downwardly away from the crown from the first end to the second end and tapering inward from the first end to the second end.
Another embodiment of Banffy (Fig. 3) teaches a first pouch (4) disposed on the exterior surface of the crown (as shown in Fig. 3), the first pouch disposed on the first side of the crown (as shown in Fig. 3), the first pouch including a first slit (opening closed by zipper 9) configured to provide entry and closure to the first pouch (as can be seen in Fig. 3).
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 a side pouch to the headwear of Figs. 1-2 of Banffy, as taught by Fig. 3 of Banffy, in order to offer additional storage to the hat for necessary items such as keys, identification, cards, and cash.
The modified headwear of Banffy does not expressly disclose a cape including a first end coupled to the lower margin of the crown and a second end disposed opposite the first end, the cape extending downwardly away from the crown from the first end to the second end and tapering inward from the first end to the second end.
Buri teaches headwear with a deployable cape (2), the cape including a first end coupled to the lower margin of the crown (upper end of 2 as shown in Fig. 2 being coupled to rim of the crown as discloses in para. 0025) and a second end (lower end) disposed opposite the first end (as shown in Fig. 2), the cape extending downwardly away from the crown from the first end to the second end and tapering inward from the first end to the second end (as understood from Fig. 2).
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 a neck cape to the modified headwear of Banffy, as taught by Buri, thus “offering the wearer the option to selectively transform the baseball cap by deploying the section of material from the rear of the baseball cap and securely fitting the second of the material over the wearer’s head, ears, and neck” (see para. 0005 of Buri).
Regarding claim 22, the modified headwear of Banffy discloses wherein the cape (2 of Buri) extends from a first end (upper end of 2 as shown in Fig. 2 of Buri being coupled to rim of the crown as discloses in para. 0025) disposed adjacent to the lower margin of the crown (as seen in Fig. 2 of Buri) to a second end (lower end) disposed opposite the first end (as shown in Fig. 2), wherein the cape resembles a duck bill shape (as best as can be understood and shown throughout the figures of Bury, the cap can be considered to be shaped like a duck bill as it is wide and rounded at the second end).
Regarding claim 23, the modified headwear of Banffy discloses wherein the pouch includes a first end (2nd edge in annotated Fig. 2) and a second end (1st edge in annotated Fig. 2) disposed opposite the first end (see annotated Fig. 2), wherein the first end of the pouch is a free end of the pouch and the second end of the pouch is a closed end of the pouch (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 26, the modified headwear of Banffy discloses wherein the cape (2 of Buri) is shaped as a duck bill (as best as can be understood and shown throughout the figures of Buri, the cap can be considered to be shaped like a duck bill as it is wide and rounded at the second end), and wherein the cape is formed of a hydrophilic material (see para. 0025 of Buri where the cape can be made of cotton).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banffy and Buri, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Chang (US 2011/0094014).
Regarding claim 13, the modified headwear of Banffy discloses all the limitations of claim 7 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the pouch is comprised of a mesh material.
Chang teaches headwear with a pouch (30/40), wherein the pouch is comprised of a mesh material (see para. 0031).
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 both the pouch of the modified headwear of Banffy, a mesh material, as taught by Chang, so that “the users can visualize the interior of the interlayer space and also the contents of the articles therein” (see para. 0031 of Chang), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banffy and Buri, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Potochnik (US 5887287).
Regarding claim 14, the modified headwear of Banffy discloses wherein the cape (2 of Buri) includes a hydrophilic material (cotton, see para. 0025 of Buri), but does not expressly disclose wherein the crown includes a hydrophilic material.
Potochnik teaches headwear with a pouch and a cape wherein the cape (21 and crown 17) include a hydrophilic material (cotton, see col. 4, lines 12-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make both the cape and crown of the modified headwear of Banffy, a hydrophilic material, as taught by Potochnik, in order to use a material “that give the desired amount of durability, rigidity, fashion or novelty for the wearer” (see col. 4, lines 12-14 of Potochnik), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banffy and Buri, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Yoo (US 2025/0049168).
Regarding claim 16, the modified headwear of Banffy discloses all the limitations of claim 7 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein a first portion of the crown is comprised of a first material and a second portion of the crown is formed of a second material that is different than the first material.
Yoo teaches baseball style caps wherein a first portion of the crown is comprised of a first material and a second portion of the crown is formed of a second material that is different than the first material (as disclosed in para. 0037).
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 crown of the modified headwear of Banffy, of different materials, as taught by Yoo, in order to use to provide the crown with different properties in different areas, such as ventilation in the rear and UV coverage in the front, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banffy and Buri, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Baldwin (US 2008/0016602).
Regarding claim 24, the modified headwear of Banffy and Buri discloses all the limitations of claim 7 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the article of headwear includes a band disposed on the interior surface.
Baldwin teaches a hat with storage pockets wherein the article of headwear includes a band (26) disposed on the interior surface (see para. 0015).
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 a band to the interior of the headwear of the modified headwear Banffy, as taught by Baldwin “for preventing sweat from running in the wearer’s eyes and face” (see para. 0015 of Baldwin).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banffy and Buri, as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Baldwin.
Regarding claim 25, the modified headwear of Banffy and Buri discloses all the limitations of claim 21 above, but does not expressly disclose comprising: a third pouch disposed on the exterior surface of the crown, the third pouch disposed on the second side of the crown, the third pouch including a third slit configured to provide entry and closure to the third pouch.
Baldwin teaches a hat with storage pockets comprising: a third pouch (12 on the side shown in Fig. 1) disposed on the exterior surface of the crown (as seen in Figs. 1-2), the third pouch disposed on the second side of the crown (side shown in Fig. 1), the third pouch including a third slit (opening at 30) configured to provide entry and closure to the third pouch (as disclosed in para. 0013).
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 a third pouch to second side of the modified headwear of Banffy, as taught by Baldwin, to “offer convenient, secure storage for personal and other items” (see para. 0006 of Baldwin) as “various items such as energy bars, energy gels, keys, identification, credit cards, personal music devices, etc,. may easily and conveniently be stored in the pockets” (see para. 0013 of Baldwin), and since such a modification would amount to a mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. Examiner notes, that as a simply duplication of parts, the third pouch would have the same structure as the second pouch of Banffy, thus have the same slit shown at 9 in Fig. 3 of Banffy, just on the opposite side of the headwear.
PNG
media_image1.png
832
723
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 (Banffy)
PNG
media_image2.png
447
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 (Chu)
PNG
media_image3.png
477
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 (Chu)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 19, 2026, with respect to 35 USC 102 and 103 rejection of claims 7-20 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights