DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed February 3, 2026 in which claims 1-20 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s First Argument: At least in view of current amendments to the claims, no claim limitations invoke 35 USC 112(f).
Examiner’s Response: Agreed. No claim limitations are currently being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Applicant’s Second Argument: Claim objections for informalities to claims 1, 3, and 11 should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to the claims.
Examiner’s Response: Agreed. The claim objections for informalities to claims 1, 3, and 11 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s Third Argument: Rejection of claims 2-17 and 19-20 under 35 USC 112(b) should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to the claims.
Examiner’s Response: Agreed. The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Fourth Argument: Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 102 over USPN 6,481,024 Grant should be withdrawn at least in view of current amendments to the claims.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are moot because Grant is not relied upon to reject any claims in the instant office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following minor informalities: Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the at least one extended support include an embedded part…,” which should be amended to recite “wherein the at least one extended support includes an embedded part…”
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following minor informalities: Claim 15 recites the limitation “The chinstrap of claim 14, further includes binding posts…,” which should be amended to recite “The chinstrap of claim 14, further including binding posts…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 5,794,274 Kraemer.
To claim 1, Kraemer discloses a chinstrap for a helmet (see Figures 1-6; col. 3, line 20 – col. 6, line 11), the chinstrap comprising:
a chin cup (150) (see Figures 1-4; col. 3, lines 21-48);
a protective cover (200) supporting the chin cup (see Figures 1-4; col. 3, lines 21-28; col. 4, line 1 – col. 5, line 45);
at least one extended support (310) extending from the chin cup and into the protective cover (annotated Figure 3, see below; col. 5, lines 1-24); and
at least one locking pin (310) extending into the protective cover and into engagement with the at least one extended support to secure the chin cup to the protective cover (annotated Figure 3; col. 5, lines 1-24).
PNG
media_image1.png
908
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To claim 2, Kraemer further discloses a chinstrap wherein the protective cover includes an internal part (240) (see Figures 2-4), formed of a first material (col. 4, lines 51-67), and an external part (210) (see Figures 2-4), formed of a second material (col. 4, lines 13-37), the second material being made of a harder material than the first material to withstand impacts (col. 4, lines 13-37 and 51-67).
To claim 3, Kraemer further discloses a chinstrap further comprising jaw portions (240) that extend from the protective cover a direction such that the jaw portions are configured to be in general alignment with a helmet wearer's jawline when worn (see Figures 2-4; col. 4, lines 51-67).
To claim 4, Kraemer further discloses a chinstrap wherein the at least one extended support protrudes from an outside part of the chin cup (annotated Figure 3; col. 5, lines 1-24).
To claim 5, Kraemer further discloses a chinstrap wherein the protective cover has holes (A’) disposed therein for receiving the at least one extended support (see Figures 2-4; col. 5, lines 1-24).
To claim 6, Kraemer further discloses a chinstrap wherein the at least one extended support includes an embedded part (shaft of at least one extended part 310) that is disposed in the chin cup and an extend part (head of at least one extended part 310) that protrudes from the chin cup (annotated Figure 3; col. 5, lines 1-24).
To claim 7, Kraemer further discloses a chinstrap wherein the extended part of the at least one extended support has a support opening (annotated Figure 3; col. 5, lines 1-24; hole through at least one extended part 310 configured to accept at least one locking pin 310).
To claim 8, Kraemer further discloses a chinstrap wherein the at least one locking pin is configured to extend through lateral openings (A’) in the protective cover and into the support opening in the extended part of the at least one extended support (annotated Figure 3; col. 5, lines 1-24).
To claim 9, Kraemer further discloses a chinstrap wherein the lateral openings of the protective cover are disposed in an internal part of the protective cover (annotated Figure 3; col. 5, lines 1-24).
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 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kraemer (as applied to claim 1, above) in view of USPN 4,335,472 Rappleyea.
To claim 10, Kraemer discloses a chinstrap as recited in claim 1, above.
Kraemer does not disclose a chinstrap wherein the chin cup has pockets and each pocket is configured to receive a strap for securing the chinstrap to the helmet.
However, Rappleyea teaches a chinstrap (see Figures 1-4; col. 2, line 4 – col. 4, line 15) comprising a chin cup (26) having pockets (50a-c) and each pocket is configured to receive a strap (28,30) for securing the chinstrap to a helmet (10) (see Figures 1-4; col. 2, line 35 – col. 3, line 3, line 5).
Kraemer and Rappleyea teach analogous inventions in the field of chinstraps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chinstrap of Kraemer to include pockets as taught by Rappleyea because Rappleyea teaches that this configuration is known in the art and beneficial for allowing movement of the strap relative to the chin cup to permit conformability to the wearer’s head, thus providing comfort and improved fit for the wearer (col. 3, lines 6-35).
To claim 11, the modified invention of Kraemer (i.e., Kraemer in view of Rappleyea, as detailed above) further teaches a chinstrap wherein a sleeve (56a-c of Rappleyea) is disposed in each one of the pockets to provide structural reinforcement configured to withstand forces applied to the chin cup (see Figures 2-4 and col. 2, line 35 – col. 3, line 5 of Rappleyea).
To claim 12, the modified invention of Kraemer (i.e., Kraemer in view of Rappleyea, as detailed above) further teaches a chinstrap wherein each one of the pockets has an aperture (58a-c of Rappleyea) in an outside part of the chin cup and a slot (52a-c of Rappleyea) cut into an inside part of the chin cup (see Figures 2-4 and col. 2, line 35 – col. 3, line 5 of Rappleyea).
To claim 13, the modified invention of Kraemer (i.e., Kraemer in view of Rappleyea, as detailed above) further teaches a chinstrap wherein the slot has a bulbous portion and a neck portion (see Figures 2-4 and col. 2, line 35 – col. 3, line 5 of Rappleyea).
To claim 14, the modified invention of Kraemer (i.e., Kraemer in view of Rappleyea, as detailed above) further teaches a chinstrap wherein each sleeve includes a hole disposed therein in an outer part of the sleeve in general alignment with the aperture in the outside part of a respective one of the pockets and a channel disposed in an inner side of the sleeve in general alignment with the slot in the inside part of the respective one of the pockets (see Figures 2-4 and col. 2, line 35 – col. 3, line 5 of Rappleyea).
To claim 15, the modified invention of Kraemer (i.e., Kraemer in view of Rappleyea, as detailed above) further teaches a chinstrap further including binding posts wherein a portion of the binding posts extend through the aperture of a respective one of the pockets of the chin cup, a hole in the strap, and the hole in the sleeve disposed in the respective one of the pockets (see Figures 2-4 and col. 2, line 35 – col. 3, line 5 of Rappleyea).
To claim 16, the modified invention of Kraemer (i.e., Kraemer in view of Rappleyea, as detailed above) further teaches a chinstrap wherein the pockets are positioned in at least two locations in the chin cup (see Figures 1-4 and col. 2, line 35 – col. 3, line 35 of Rappleyea).
To claim 17, the modified invention of Kraemer (i.e., Kraemer in view of Rappleyea, as detailed above) further teaches a chinstrap wherein the pockets are positioned at four corners of the chin cup (see Figures 1-4 and col. 2, line 35 – col. 3, line 35 of Rappleyea).
To claim 18, Kraemer further discloses a chinstrap further comprising one or more straps (170) (see Figures 1-4; col. 3, line 49 – col. 4, line 13).
Kraemer does not explicitly disclose a chinstrap wherein the one or more straps are rotatable relative to the chin cup without distortion of the one or more straps.
However, Rappleyea teaches a chinstrap (see Figures 1-4; col. 2, line 4 – col. 4, line 15) wherein one or more straps (28,30) are rotatable relative to a chin cup (26) without distortion of the one or more straps (see Figures 1-4; col. 2, line 19 – col. 3, line 35).
Kraemer and Rappleyea teach analogous inventions in the field of chinstraps. 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 chinstrap of Kraemer so that the one or more straps are rotatable relative to the chin cup without distortion of the one or more straps as taught by Rappleyea because Rappleyea teaches that this configuration is known in the art and beneficial for permitting conformability to the wearer’s head, thus providing comfort and improved fit for the wearer (col. 3, lines 6-35).
To claim 19, the modified invention of Kraemer (i.e., Kraemer in view of Rappleyea, as detailed above) further teaches a chinstrap wherein the sleeve has an inlet for receiving the strap and the inlet is wider than a width of the strap to permit rotation of the strap, the sleeve having a first shoulder and a second shoulder therein to define limits the strap can rotate without distortion (see Figures 1-4 and col. 2, line 35 – col. 3, line 35 of Rappleyea).
To claim 20, the modified invention of Kraemer (i.e., Kraemer in view of Rappleyea, as detailed above) further teaches a chinstrap wherein a distance between the first shoulder and the second shoulder in the sleeve decreases as the first shoulder and second shoulder extend from the inlet (see Figures 1-4 and col. 2, line 35 – col. 3, line 35 of Rappleyea).
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 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
Prosecution Insights