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
Applicant’s response of 6/25/2006 is received and reviewed. Claims 21-26, 29-31, and 36 are amended and claims 21-40 are pending. An IDS of 8/28/2026 was also received and considered.
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 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hylton (U.S. 2019/0387827) in view of Lacy (U.S. 10,098,398). Hylton discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Hylton teaches a visor 12 configured to be coupled to and support from a hard hat (par.0006 discloses a hardhat safety helmet as an example of a helmet that can be worn with the visor), the visor comprising: a first portion (front portion) configured to extend around a first portion of a hard hat; a second portion (rear portion) configured to extend around a second portion of the hard hat and wherein the first portion and the second portion of the visor each extend radially outward from an inner edge to an outer edge (visor 12 connects to crown 11 at the inner edge of the brim). However, Hylton doesn't teach a first stretch zone extending between and connecting the first portion of the visor and the second portion of the visor; and a second stretch zone opposing the first stretch zone, the second stretch zone extending between and connecting the first portion of the visor and the second portion of the visor; and wherein the first stretch zone and the second stretch zone are positioned between the inner edge and the outer edge. Lacy teaches a foldable visor 200 (2A-D) with a first stretch zone 212 extending between and connecting the first portion of the visor and the second portion of the visor, and a second stretch zone 212 opposing the first stretch zone and extending between and connecting the first portion of the visor and
second portion of the visor. Lacy teaches the stretch zones as "center webbing" and teaches that the center webbing may be more elastic than the bias material in col.7, lines 4-5. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hylton's visor to include the first and second stretch zones as claimed and taught by Lacy, such that Hylton's visor can fold at the stretch zones for compact storage.
Claims 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hylton in view of Lacy as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Schoener (U.S. 2,934,767) and Davis (U.S. 6,263,508). Hylton discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Hylton doesn't teach the first portion of the visor is formed from a semi-transparent material, and the second portion of the visor is formed from an opaque material and the semi-transparent material is a plastic material and the opaque material is fabric or the first and second portions are each formed from an opaque material. Schoener teaches that it's known in the art to form a visor as semi-transparent ("transparent but colored", i.e. tinted plastic as the visor is formed from plastic) or opaque. Davis teaches it's known in the art to form a visor 42 as in Figure 9 that extends 360 degrees in circumference from a combination of materials, with different sections of the visor being a solid portion to act as an eye shade and other sections being tinted translucent plastic to permit filtered light to pass through. For claims 37 and 38, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hylton's first portion of the visor to form from semi-transparent material and to modify the second portion of the visor to form from an opaque material and the semi-transparent material is a plastic material and the opaque material is fabric, as Davis teaches that it's known in the art to provide a visor with sections formed from different materials to shade the wearer's eyes from light or to permit filtered light to pass through the visor. The materials are known in the art as Hylton's visor is formed from canvas and Schoener teaches the semi-transparent plastic will permit filtered light to pass through to the wearer's eyes. For claim 39, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the first and second portions from an opaque material, as Hylton's visor may be formed from canvas and Schoener teaches a visor formed form opaque material is known to act as an eye shade.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hylton in view of Lacy as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Niedermeyer (U.S. 2020/0253311). Hylton discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Hylton, as modified by Lacy, teaches the first stretch and second stretch zone are formed from a first material and the first portion of the visor is formed from a second material (canvas) and the second portion of the visor is formed from a third material (bias material of the visor as in col.7, lines 1-5) and the first material is more elastic than the second material and third material as the center webbing is more elastic than the bias material and the first material is more elastic than canvas, which is not elastic. Hylton doesn't teach the visor comprising an elastic strap coupled to opposing sections of the first portion of the visor. Niedermeyer teaches a visor 20 comprising an elastic strap 34 coupled to opposing sections of the first portion of the visor configured to extend around a first portion of a hard hat. The strap includes two portions that join together to form the strap and the strap is an elastic retention strap for securing the visor to a hard hat. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hylton to provide the visor with an elastic strap coupled to opposing sections of the first portion of the visor, as Niedermeyer teaches it's known to provide a visor with an elastic strap coupled to opposing sections of the first portion of the visor for securing the visor to a hard hat.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-35 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered. Applicant submits that the Examiner has not articulated a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Hylton’s shade hat by the center webbing (“stretch zones”) of Lacy et al. and there is no explanation or further analysis regarding why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the specific locations of the stretch zones or why the material of the hat of Hylton does not already provide the ability to fold for compact storage. Applicant also submits that the proposed modification would render Hylton unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, and such modification is improper (see MPEP 2143.01.V.)
The Examiner doesn’t find Applicant’s remarks to the 103 rejection persuasive. Applicant submits that Hylton’s shade hat/brim 12 is formed from three layers containing an internal flexible stiffening foam material…surrounded by a skin of durable breathable flexible material such that the stiffening foam and fabric materials have a minimal stiffness and are rigid enough to maintain the shape and position of brim 12 relative to the wearer’s head during climbing or during other outdoor sporting activities. The Examiner submits that Hylton teaches the brim could be made from the three layers discussed by Applicant and disclosed in par.22 of Hylton, while Hylton also discloses the brim 12 could be made from one or more layers of materials known in the art such as rigid or flexible mesh, canvas, neoprene, foam, plastic, or other similar materials as in par.22. Thus, Hylton’s brim 12 should be capable of maintaining the shape and position of the brim 12 relative to the wearer’s head during sporting activities; however, the structure of Hylton’s brim 12 isn’t limited to the three layered structure relied upon in Applicant’s arguments. Lacy teaches an analagous visor 200 with the claimed first and second stretch zones and the visor may also include structural supports for additional support and/or flexibility of the headwear. Lacy clearly provides the teaching, suggestion and motivation for modifying Hylton, as the stretch zones assist with folding the brim without permanent deformation of the brim material, as the stretch zones expand when the brim is folded, to allow for repeated folding and unfolding for stowing and wearing the brim and would improve Lacy’s brim in the same manner. The Examiner is not persuaded that the proposed modification of Hylton’s brim would render Hylton unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, as the stretch zones would extend across limited areas of Hylton’s brim, not affecting the remaining portions of the one of more layers of rigid or flexible brim material.
The Examiner notes that amendments to claims 21-26 and 29-31 revise the limitations to reflect the terminology used in the specification such that the priority date of 8/17/2020 is accord to claims 21-35 and the drawing objections are obviated.
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.
/KATHERINE M MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights