DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed June 27, 2025 in which claims 1-19 are presented for examination.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the support body" on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the support body" on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the support body" on line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the support body" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub No. 2010/0219214 Pullum.
To claim 1, Pullum discloses a hat form (see Figures 1-5, reproduced below for convenience; paras. 0017-0024) of a heat press system (functional, subcombination claim), the hat form comprising:
a cover (112) at least partially defining an internal volume of the hat form (see Figures 1-5; para. 0018); and
a fill material (111) disposed within and at least partially occupying the internal volume (see Figures 1-5; para. 0018).
To the limitation that the hat form is a hat form “of a heat press system,” it is noted that this limitation is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function. As Pullum discloses the structure of the hat form as claimed, there would be a reasonable expectation for the hat form of Pullum to perform the function of serving as the hat form of a heat press system.
PNG
media_image1.png
900
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
905
601
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
902
589
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
908
583
media_image4.png
Greyscale
To claim 2, Pullum further discloses a hat form wherein the cover comprises a heat resistant fabric (para. 0018; both leather and plastic possess at least some degree of heat resistance).
To claim 4, Pullum further discloses a hat form further comprising a base (103) (see Figures 1-3; paras. 0018, 0020), wherein:
the cover is coupled to the base (see Figures 1-3; paras. 0018, 0020; in a fully-assembled configuration of the hat form as depicted in Figures 1-3, all elements of the hat form are considered to be “coupled” to all other elements of the hat form); and
the cover and the base together define the internal volume of the hat form (see Figures 1-3; paras. 0018, 0020).
To claim 5, Pullum further discloses a hat form wherein the base has a perimeter, wherein the cover is coupled to the base along the perimeter (see Figures 1-3; paras. 0018, 0020).
To claim 6, Pullum further discloses a hat form wherein a radially outward surface of the cover (see Figures 1-5; para. 0018) is configured to engage a curved workpiece (functional), wherein the radially outward surface of the cover is convex (see Figures 1-5; para. 0018).
It is respectfully noted that the limitation “configured to engage a curved workpiece,” is functional and does not positively recite a structural limitation but instead requires an ability to so perform and/or function. As Pullum discloses the structure of the hat form as claimed, there would be a reasonable expectation for the hat form of Pullum to perform such function.
To claim 8, Pullum further discloses a hat form further comprising a handle (119) coupled to the base (see Figures 1-3; para. 0018).
To claim 9, Pullum further discloses a hat form further comprising a support body (101) extending from the base into the internal volume of the hat form (see Figures 1-3; paras. 0018, 0020).
To claim 14, Pullum further discloses a hat form wherein the fill material is a granular material (para. 0018; cork).
To claim 17, Pullum further discloses a hat form further comprising a liner (114) disposed between the fill material and the support body (see Figures 1-3 and 5; para. 0018).
To claim 18, Pullum further discloses a hat form further comprising a liner (114) disposed between the support body and the base (see Figures 1-3 and 5; para. 0018).
To claim 19, Pullum further discloses a hat form further comprising a liner (114) disposed between the cover and the fill material (see Figures 1-3 and 5; para. 0018).
ALTERNATE REJECTION: Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 9,585,438 Johnson et al.
To claim 1, Johnson discloses a hat form of a heat press system (see Figure 14, reproduced below for convenience; col. 9, line 60 – col. 10, line 3), the hat form comprising:
a cover (802) at least partially defining an internal volume of the hat form (see Figure 14; col. 9, line 60 – col. 10, line 3); and
a fill material (804) disposed within and at least partially occupying the internal volume (see Figure 14; col. 9, line 60 – col. 10, line 3).
PNG
media_image5.png
896
581
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This ALTERNATE REJECTION over Johnson has been limited to independent claim 1 for purposes of brevity. It is respectfully noted however that Johnson may be relied upon, alone or in combination, to reject additional claim(s) in future office action(s).
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pullum in view of USPN 10,632,782 Cheever et al.
To claim 3, Pullum further discloses a hat form wherein the cover may comprise leather, plastic, or other appropriate material (para. 0018).
Pullum does not explicitly disclose a hat form wherein the cover comprises a metallic coating.
However, Cheever teaches a form (10) of a heat press system comprising a cover that comprises a metallic coating (col. 3, lines 4-12; col. 21, line 66 – col. 22, line 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the cover of Pullum to comprise a metallic coating as taught by Cheever because Cheever teaches that this configuration is known in the art and provides heat reflection properties (col. 21, line 66 – col. 22, line 34). It is further respectfully noted that 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 (see MPEP 2144.07).
To claim 7, Pullum further discloses a hat form wherein the base may comprise rubber, plastic, or other suitable material (para. 0018).
Pullum does not explicitly disclose a hat form wherein the base comprises a polyester fabric.
However, Cheever teaches a form (10) of a heat press system comprising a base that comprises a polyester fabric (col. 3, lines 4-12; col. 17, lines 1-46; col. 21, lines 25-44; col. 22, lines 35-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the base of Pullum to comprise a polyester fabric as taught by Cheever because Cheever teaches that this configuration is known in the art and provides insulation properties (col. 22, lines 35-46). It is further respectfully noted that 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 (see MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pullum in view of USPN 3,310,267 Koehler.
To claim 10, Pullum further discloses a hat form wherein the support body may be cylindrical, rectangular, or other appropriate shape (para. 0020).
Pullum does not explicitly disclose a hat form wherein the support body comprises a frustoconical shape.
However, Koehler teaches a hat form (see Figures 1-4, reproduced below for convenience; col. 1, line 70 – col. 2, line 59) comprising a support body (11) that comprises a frustoconical shape (see Figures 1 and 3-4; col. 1, line 70 – col. 2, line 12).
PNG
media_image6.png
909
643
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the support body of Pullum to comprise a frustoconical shape as taught by Koehler because Koehler teaches that this configuration is known in the art and provides a secure connection between parts (col. 2, lines 13-26).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pullum.
To claim 11, Pullum discloses a hat form as recited in claim 1, above.
Pullum does not explicitly disclose a hat form wherein a volume ratio of the fill material to the support body in the internal volume is between about 1:1 and about 4:1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the hat form of Pullum such that a volume ratio of the fill material to the support body in the internal volume is between about 1:1 and about 4:1 as a matter of routine optimization. It is further respectfully noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
To claim 12, Pullum discloses a hat form as recited in claim 1, above.
Pullum does not explicitly disclose a hat form wherein a volume ratio of the fill material to the support body in the internal volume is between about 1.5:1 and about 3:1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the hat form of Pullum such that a volume ratio of the fill material to the support body in the internal volume is between about 1.5:1 and about 3:1 as a matter of routine optimization. It is further respectfully noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
To claim 13, Pullum discloses a hat form as recited in claim 1, above.
Pullum does not explicitly disclose a hat form wherein the fill material occupies more than 50% of the internal volume and the support body occupies less than 50% of the internal volume.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the hat form of Pullum such that the fill material occupies more than 50% of the internal volume and the support body occupies less than 50% of the internal volume as a matter of routine optimization. It is further respectfully noted that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pullum in view of USPN 3,824,715 Vaughan, Jr. et al.
To claim 15, Pullum discloses a hat form wherein the fill material is a granular material (para. 0018; cork).
Pullum does not explicitly disclose a hat form wherein the granular material comprises a conglomeration of shells from at least one of nuts, drupes, and/or legumes.
However, Vaughan teaches a fill material that is a granular material comprising a conglomeration of shells from at least one of nuts, drupes, and/or legumes (col. 4, lines 30-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the granular fill material of Pullum to be a conglomeration of shells from at least one of nuts, drupes, and/or legumes as taught by Vaughan because Vaughan teaches that this configuration is known in the art and that nut shells are useful materials as particulate matter (col. 4, lines 30-46). It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a simple substitution of one well-known granular fill material (cork) with another (nut shells) to yield the predictable result of providing fill material for an internal volume.
To claim 16, Pullum discloses a hat form wherein the fill material is a granular material (para. 0018; cork).
Pullum does not explicitly disclose a hat form wherein the granular material comprises walnut shells.
However, Vaughan teaches a fill material that is a granular material comprising walnut shells (col. 4, lines 30-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the granular fill material of Pullum to be walnut shells as taught by Vaughan because Vaughan teaches that this configuration is known in the art and that walnut shells are useful materials as particulate matter (col. 4, lines 30-46). It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a simple substitution of one well-known granular fill material (cork) with another (walnut shells) to yield the predictable result of providing fill material for an internal volume.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Additional forms analogous to the instant invention (see form PTO-892 “Notice of References Cited”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRIFFIN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-0546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/F Griffin Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732