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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The most recent submitted amendment and remarks in papers dated 12/15/2025 are verbatim to the amendment and papers submitted/dated 6/5/2025. The current rejection below is the verbatim rejection mailed on 6/13/2025.
The current applicant remarks, being verbatim to the remarks dated 6/5/2025, do not address the rejection and response to arguments that were presented in the rejection mailed on 6/13/2025.
The rejection and response to arguments below are verbatim to those mailed on 6/13/2025.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20020162160 (Anderson) in view of US 6421838 (Frank) and further in view of US 20010037542 (Elliott).
‘160 does fully disclose: A hat (fig. 1) having a removable chin strap (74, figs. 3 and 9, knot 86 is an endpiece of the strap that forms a removable attachment capability) for a hat’s brim, said removable chin strap comprising:
(A) a flexible strap (74) having two ends (strap shown inherently has two ends),
(B) a plurality of separable and attachable end pieces (knots 78 are ‘end pieces connected’ to the strap ends; knots 78 are ‘end pieces’ that are ‘separable’, i.e. able to be untied or separated, and have an “attachability” functionality as ‘160 discloses, “simple knot 78 can be used to anchor the chin strap to the hat 10 (par. 54)”), each end piece connected to one of said two ends (knots 78 are formed at the ends of the strap and therefore are “connected” to each end of the strap),
(C) a strap position lock device (80), and
(D) an attachment element connected to said flexible strap , said attachment element for attaching said flexible strap to clothing, including hat and other clothing (fig. 9, shows an attachment retainer at 84 and the end of strap 83 for attaching the strap to the hat which is a type of ‘clothing that includes the hat and other clothing’ as claimed). (claim 1 absent the ‘endpieces’ being separate discrete elements from the strap and the attachment element being in the form of a clip)
‘160 discloses said hat comprises a plurality of slots (unnumbered in figs. 3 and 6) for receiving said flexible strap, wherein said plurality of end pieces (knots 78 disclosed as anchoring/connecting to the hat) retain said flexible strap connected to said hat. (claim 3 with the exception that the strap and slots are not attached on the hat’s brim)
‘160 fully discloses claim 5 as the element 80 is disclosed as including 82 which is disclosed as a spring loaded release clamp.
‘160 does not disclose from claims 1, 2, and 4: the ‘endpieces’ being separate discrete elements from the strap and the attachment element for attachment to hat or clothing as a clip, an alligator clip, nor as a hook clip.
‘160 also does not teach from claim 3: the strap/strap slots as attached to the hat’s brim.
Regarding the “endpieces” being separate and discrete elements from the strap:
‘838 is cited as it references a hat (1, fig. 3) with two types of potential strap elements 4 and 6 and the obvious nature of using various types of detachable, separable attachment elements on the strap ends. With regards to strap elements 6, ‘838 teaches, “Preferably, an optional retention band 6 would be attached to the head band of the cap 1 at either side of the aperture 5 and would pull on the head band to create a snug fit for the cap 1. Those skilled in the art will recognize that any number of known methods can be used to implement the retention band 6. For example, the retention band 6 can be a free elastic strap, it can be a pair of adjustable hook and loop strap's, it can be a buckle strap, it can be a pair of straps held by snaps, etc [par. 9].”; and with regards to strap elements 4, ‘838 teaches, “Those skilled in the art will realize that if the flexible elastic strap 4 is removably attached to the head band, it can also be used to perform the function of retention band 6. In fact, if the flexible elastic strap 4 is used in this manner, it needs only to be detachable at one end. If the flexible elastic strap 4 is attached in this manner, it can be used as a retention band 6, or alternatively, it can also be used as a hair retention device which is held snugly against the cap 1 when not in use. Attachment of a flexible elastic strap 4 can be accomplished with a variety of known attachment devices, such as hook and loop material, snaps, ties, etc., [par. 10].”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in detachable attachment devices to modify the strap taught above to replace the knot/tie attachment means with any of a number of commonly known and widely used removably attachable separable/hand holdable, knotless, attachment devices including hook and loop means, buckles, snaps, etc. (of which clips must certainly be conceded as a widely known attachable device) all taught by ‘838 as commonly known and used devices for providing detachable attachment of a strap on or to a hat.
Regarding missing “clip” form of attachment from claims 1, 2 and 4, US 20010037542 (Elliott) is referenced as it teaches in fig. 7 multiple clips each capable of providing attachment to clothing; clip 13 shown is a “hook clip”; and clip 32 which is an “alligator clip”.
‘542 teaches, “The attachment of the device to the clothing of the user allows a towel to be readily available to the user…” and so as not to be cumbersome (i.e. ‘in the way’) or lost during use.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of garment design and manufacture at the time of filing the invention to modify the strap attachment already taught by ‘160 to further use a clip, hook clip, and/or alligator clip as taught by ‘542 so that the user can attach the strap attachment easily and effectively to a clothing item’s surface so that the strap attaches a desired item to the clothing is readily available; and does not to become cumbersome/’in the way’, or lost during use.
Regarding claim 3, the only difference between ‘160 and the claimed arrangement is that the strap and strap slots of ‘160 are at a lower edge of the crown of the hat and not the brim as claimed.
However, figs. 3 and 6 from ‘160 show the strap and strap slots very close to if not only millimeters away from the brim of the hat.
There is no showing of different operation, criticality nor unexpected result from the straps being attached at the brim rather than the lower edge of the crown portion of a hat.
The MPEP states:
Rearrangement of Parts
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic
power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
It is the examiner’s position that the mere changing of the position of the attachment of the straps on a hat’s lower crown perimeter to the brim which extends from and is adjacent to the lower crown perimeter would not have modified the operation of the hat; therefore the particular placement of a strap/strap slots for attachment to a strap to a hat was held to be an obvious matter of design choice.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of garment design and manufacture at the time of filing the invention to modify the strap attachment already taught by ‘160 to simply modify the attachment point of the strap/strap slots from the lower edge perimeter of the crown portion of the hat to the brim portion of the hat as a matter of obvious design choice so as to provide a hat with a removable chin strap in the desired location during use.
With regards to claims 7-9, ‘838 is cited as it references a hat (1, fig. 3) with two types of potential strap elements 4 and 6 and the obvious nature of using various types of detachable, separable attachment elements on the strap ends. With regards to strap elements 6, ‘838 teaches, “Preferably, an optional retention band 6 would be attached to the head band of the cap 1 at either side of the aperture 5 and would pull on the head band to create a snug fit for the cap 1. Those skilled in the art will recognize that any number of known methods can be used to implement the retention band 6. For example, the retention band 6 can be a fee elastic strap, it can be a pair of adjustable hook and loop strap's, it can be a buckle strap, it can be a pair of straps held by snaps, etc [par. 9].”; and with regards to strap elements 4, ‘838 teaches, “Those skilled in the art will realize that if the flexible elastic strap 4 is removably attached to the head band, it can also be used to perform the function of retention band 6. In fact, if the flexible elastic strap 4 is used in this manner, it needs only to be detachable at one end. If the flexible elastic strap 4 is attached in this manner, it can be used as a retention band 6, or alternatively, it can also be used as a hair retention device which is held snugly against the cap 1 when not in use. Attachment of a flexible elastic strap 4 can be accomplished with a variety of known attachment devices, such as hook and loop material, snaps, ties, etc., [par. 10].”.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in detachable attachment devices to modify the combined strap (‘160 in view of ‘542) taught above to replace the knot attachment means with any of a number of commonly known and widely used removably attachable (claim 7 and 8), separable/hand holdable (claim 8 and 9), knotless (claim 8), attachment devices including hook and loop means, buckles, snaps, etc. all taught by ‘838 as commonly known and used devices for providing detachable attachment of a strap on or to a hat.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s current remarks dated 12/15/2025 do not overcome the rejection as stated above.
Assertion that element 84 is not a separable and attachable end piece is irrelevant. Element 84 is cited as a type of fastening and attachment element that is modified/replaced by a known separable and attachable fastening/attachment devices as taught by ‘838 to provide known detachable attachment devices on the ends of straps. ‘542 is further referenced to teach known types of detachable fastening/attachment devices.
Assertions regarding the cited references above being non-analogous art are incorrect. The claim requires the “attachment clip” to be functionally capable to attach the strap to hat or clothing. The base reference teaches all of claim 1 absent the attachment element in ‘160 being explicitly recited as a separable and attachable clip type attachment element. ‘838 provides known detachable attachment devices on the ends of straps. The ‘542 reference is an article that teaches use of a clip type attachment and explicitly teaches, “The attachment of the device to the clothing of the user allows a towel to be readily available to the user…” and so as not to be cumbersome (i.e. ‘in the way’) or lost during use. The ‘542 reference is teaching use of a clip means to attach an element/device to the clothing (hat is a type of clothing/textile) of a user and to a towel which is a fabric/textile. The references are not ‘non-analogous art’ references. It is an incorrect interpretation of USC 103 to argue that the combining references must show a hat.
Assertion that ‘542 is silent to hats has no effect. The teaching taken from ‘542 is referenced by the examiner to address a modification of the attachment element type used by base reference ‘160 and ‘8383. The attachment element/clip taught by ‘542 is explicitly for attachment to clothing and is therefore inherently capable of attachment to a hat or any other clothing/textile/fabric surface.
No amendments have been offered.
The rejection above is verbatim to the rejection dated 12/5/2024. The rejection remains and is considered to be proper.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR whose telephone number is (571)272-4991. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 730-1730.
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.
/ROBERT H MUROMOTO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732