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 Amendment filed 4 December 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 – 20 remain pending in the application. Claims 11 – 19 were previously withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
The examiner acknowledges and accepts Applicant’s amendments to correct grammar in ¶¶ [0003] and [0048] of the instant specification.
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 – 6, 8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hattori (US 5,579,562 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hattori discloses a system (e.g. Fig. 1a – 6b, 8a, 8b; Col. 2, l. 1, to Col. 8, l. 18) comprising:
a part having at least two separate sections, including a first section formed of a first single layer of material that has a first surface and a second surface facing away from the first surface (a first one of a pair of “fastener members”, e.g. one of “fastener members” 1, 2, 10, 12, 48, 50, 68, 70: e.g. Fig. 1a – 6b, 8a, 8b; Col. 2, ll. 1 – 53; Col. 2, l. 62, to Col. 3, l. 14; Col. 3, l. 26, to Col. 8, l. 11), and a second section formed of a second single layer of material that has a third surface and a fourth surface facing away from the third surface (the other of the pair of “fastener members”, e.g. the other of “fastener members” 1, 2, 10, 12, 48, 50, 68, 70: e.g. Fig. 1a – 6b, 8a, 8b; Col. 2, ll. 1 – 53; Col. 2, l. 62, to Col. 3, l. 14; Col. 3, l. 26, to Col. 8, l. 11);
a locating feature including locator structures integrally formed with at least one of the first section and the second section to locate the first section relative to the second section with the second surface disposed facing the third surface (“protrusion”, “opening”, “wall”, e.g. “protrusion” 28, 60, “opening” 34, “wall” 76: e.g. Fig. 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3, 4a, 5, 6a; Col. 3, ll. 36 – 38; Col. 3, l. 54, to Col. 4, l. 18; Col. 4, l. 39, to Col. 5, l. 4; Col. 5, ll. 14 – 64; Col. 6, l. 30, to Col. 7, l. 40); and
a joining feature including lock structures integrally formed with at least one of the first section at the second surface and the second section at the third surface to lock the first section relative to the second section when the first section and the second section are located by the locator structures (“headed stems”, e.g. “headed stems” 18, 20: e.g. Fig. 1a – 6b, 8a, 8b; Col. 2, ll. 9 – 13, 40 – 50; Col. 3, ll. 36 – 63; Col. 4, ll. 4 – 13, 19 – 26, 39 – 47; Col. 5, ll. 8 – 13, 20 – 27; Col. 6, ll. 1 – 23, 39 – 54; Col. 7, ll. 14 – 40),
wherein the joining feature including the lock structures is contained within a thickness of a combination of the first section and the second section between the first surface and the fourth surface with no opening through the first surface and the fourth surface at the joining feature so that the first surface and the fourth surface are free of features of the joining feature, meaning the joining feature is not visible at the first surface and the fourth surface (to meet dimensional requirements or otherwise provide a blind fastening: e.g. Fig. 3 – 6b, 8a, 8b; Col. 2, ll. 1 – 16; Col. 4, ll. 60 – 63; Col. 5, ll. 45 – 54; Col. 6, ll. 30 – 42; Col. 8, ll. 1 – 10).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Hattori discloses the locating feature is contained within the thickness between the first surface and the fourth surface (e.g. Fig. 4a, 4b, 5, 6a, 6b; Col. 5, ll. 45 – 54; Col. 6, ll. 30 – 42).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Hattori discloses
the first surface and the third surface form a combined surface that is complex, meaning the combined surface curves around approximately ninety-degrees (e.g. Fig. 8a, 8b; Col. 2, ll. 1 – 35; Col. 8, ll. 1 – 11),
the combined surface has a smooth contour (e.g. Fig. 8a),
both of the first section and the second section following the combined surface over the smooth contour along a seam (as “fastener members” 10, 12, 48, 50, 68, 70 are used in place of “fastener members” 1, 2 as Hattori implies as “fastener members” 10, 12, 48, 50, 68, 70 are meant to improve upon “fastener members” 1, 2: e.g. Fig. 8a, 8b; Col. 2, ll. 28 – 53; Col. 3, ll. 26 – 40; Col. 8, ll. 1 – 11), and
the locating feature and the joining feature being both aligned along the seam (e.g. Fig. 4a – 6b when used as shown in Fig. 8a, 8b as noted previously) and the lock structures of the joining feature including sets of interlocking connectors with elongated shapes that are disposed parallel to one another (“headed stems”, e.g. “headed stems” 18, 20 are “orthogonal” to the “base” 14: e.g. Fig. 1a – 6b; Col. 3, ll. 45 – 48, 54 – 56; Col. 6, ll. 1 – 4).
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Hattori discloses the system comprises a plate that engages with the locating feature of at least one of the first section and the second section (“base” 54, 74: e.g. Fig. 4b, 5, 6b; Col. 5, ll. 8 – 11, 28 – 51; Col. 6, ll. 1 – 4, 10 – 13, 23 – 29, 44 – 49).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 4, Hattori discloses the plate includes a perimeter, wherein a stepped edge is formed completely around the perimeter (e.g. Fig. 4b, 5, 6b).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Hattori discloses the locating feature comprises a first stepped opening in the first section and a second stepped opening in the second section (as formed by “walls” 76, 80: e.g. Fig. 6a, 6b; Col. 6, ll. 6 – 42).
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Hattori discloses the locating feature includes a pin on the first section and an opening in the second section (“protrusion” 28 and “opening” 34: e.g. Fig. 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3; Col, 3, ll. 36 – 38; Col. 3, l. 54, to Col. 4, l. 18; Col. 4, l. 39, to Col. 5, l. 4).
Regarding claim 20, Hattori discloses a system for joining part sections (e.g. Fig. 1a – 6b, 8a, 8b; Col. 2, l. 1, to Col. 8, l. 18), the system comprising:
a part having a design with a complex surface (e.g. Fig. 8a, 8b; Col. 2, ll. 1 – 35; Col. 8, ll. 1 – 11),
the design split into at least two separate sections, including a first section formed of a first single layer of material that has a first surface and a second surface facing away from the first surface (a first one of a pair of “fastener members”, e.g. one of “fastener members” 1, 2, 10, 12, 48, 50, 68, 70: e.g. Fig. 1a – 6b, 8a, 8b; Col. 2, ll. 1 – 53; Col. 2, l. 62, to Col. 3, l. 14; Col. 3, l. 26, to Col. 8, l. 11), and a second section formed of a second single layer of material that has a third surface and a fourth surface facing away from the third surface (the other of the pair of “fastener members”, e.g. the other of “fastener members” 1, 2, 10, 12, 48, 50, 68, 70: e.g. Fig. 1a – 6b, 8a, 8b; Col. 2, ll. 1 – 53; Col. 2, l. 62, to Col. 3, l. 14; Col. 3, l. 26, to Col. 8, l. 11), the first section and the second section defining a seam along the complex surface (as “fastener members” 10, 12, 48, 50, 68, 70 are used in place of “fastener members” 1, 2 as Hattori implies as “fastener members” 10, 12, 48, 50, 68, 70 are meant to improve upon “fastener members” 1, 2: e.g. Fig. 8a, 8b; Col. 2, ll. 28 – 53; Col. 3, ll. 26 – 40; Col. 8, ll. 1 – 11),
a locating feature including a first structure integrally formed with the first section and a second structure integrally formed with the second section, the first structure and the second structure configured to locate the first section relative to the second section with the second surface disposed facing the third surface (“protrusion”, “opening”, “wall”, e.g. “protrusion” 28, 60, “opening” 34, “wall” 76: e.g. Fig. 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3, 4a, 5, 6a; Col. 3, ll. 36 – 38; Col. 3, l. 54, to Col. 4, l. 18; Col. 4, l. 39, to Col. 5, l. 4; Col. 5, ll. 14 – 64; Col. 6, l. 30, to Col. 7, l. 40); and
a joining feature including a third structure integrally formed with the first section at the second surface and a fourth structure integrally formed with the second section at the third surface, the third and fourth structures configured to lock the first section relative to the second section (“headed stems”, e.g. “headed stems” 18, 20: e.g. Fig. 1a – 6b, 8a, 8b; Col. 2, ll. 9 – 13, 40 – 50; Col. 3, ll. 36 – 63; Col. 4, ll. 4 – 13, 19 – 26, 39 – 47; Col. 5, ll. 8 – 13, 20 – 27; Col. 6, ll. 1 – 23, 39 – 54; Col. 7, ll. 14 – 40);
wherein the joining feature including the third and fourth structures is contained within a thickness of a combination of the first section and the second section between the first surface and the fourth surface with no opening through the first surface and the fourth surface at the joining feature so that the first surface and the fourth surface are free of features of the joining feature, meaning the joining feature does not extend through the first surface and the fourth surface (to meet dimensional requirements or otherwise provide a blind fastening: e.g. Fig. 3 – 6b, 8a, 8b; Col. 2, ll. 1 – 16; Col. 4, ll. 60 – 63; Col. 5, ll. 45 – 54; Col. 6, ll. 30 – 42; Col. 8, ll. 1 – 10).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2013/0000089 A1).
Regarding claim 7, although Hattori is not explicit as to the joining feature comprising
sets of receivers spaced apart from one another on the second surface and mating sets of plugs spaced apart from one another on the third surface, the sets of plugs configured to plug into the sets of receivers, wherein each set of receivers in the sets of receivers includes three receivers and each set of plugs in the sets of plugs includes three plugs;
a bar with an enlarged head constituting each plug in the sets of plugs;
a pair of curved strips disposed parallel to one another and defining a receptacle and constituting each receiver in the sets of receivers, the receptacle configured to receive the enlarged head; and
an overlapping joint of the first section and the second section, wherein the sets of receivers and the sets of plugs are distributed along the overlapping joint,
these features would have been obvious in view of Lee.
Lee discloses a system comprising a joining feature, wherein the joining feature comprises
sets of receivers spaced apart from one another on the second surface and mating sets of plugs spaced apart from one another on the third surface, the sets of plugs configured to plug into the sets of receivers, wherein each set of receivers in the sets of receivers includes three receivers and each set of plugs in the sets of plugs includes three plugs (“zipper rail units” comprising “female zipper rails” and “male zipper rails”, respectively, e.g. “zipper rail units” ZR comprising “female zipper rails” F and “male zipper rails” M: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8, 10, 11; ¶¶ [0007] – [0048], [0063] – [0069], [0103] – [0168], [0194] – [0224], [0228] – [0230], [0232], [0236], [0239], [0241], [0244], [0248], [0252], [0257], [0260], [0261], [0265], [0270], [0273] – [0276], [0279], [0283], [0286], [0288], [0290], [0295], [0300], [0301], [0304], [0308], [0312], [0315], [0317], [0320], [0323] – [0325], [0328] – [0330], [0332] – [0334], [0337], [0338], [0340], [0342], [0343]);
a bar with an enlarged head constituting each plug in the sets of plugs (“head parts” form the top of each “male zipper rail” M: e.g. ¶ [0009]);
a pair of curved strips disposed parallel to one another and defining a receptacle and constituting each receiver in the sets of receivers, the receptacle configured to receive the enlarged head (“female zipper rails” F comprise “extension parts” defining a “receiving space” to receive the “head parts” of a “male zipper rail” M: e.g. Fig. 1, 3, 4a – 4c, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11; ¶¶ [0008] – [0011], [0038] – [0040], [0112] – [0115], [0120] – [0132], [0136] – [0138], [0144], [0146], [0150] – [0152], [0155], [0156], [0160], [0163], [0166], [0194] – [0196], [0201], [0203], [0204], [0208], [0210], [0211], [0213], [0215], [0324], [0333]); and
an overlapping joint of the first section and the second section, wherein the sets of receivers and the sets of plugs are distributed along the overlapping joint (e.g. Fig. 4a – 4c, 10, 11).
Lee’s receivers and bars convey an advantage in allowing a change in positioning after initial joining (e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0005] – [0007], [0035], [0036], [0038], [0039], [0116], [0147], [0148], [0170]).
Hattori uses the locating feature to help align the lock structures prior to engagement (e.g. Col. 2, ll. 28 – 33, 39 – 53; Col. 3, ll. 26 – 39; Col. 4, ll. 3 – 58) but also notes alignment may not be perfect in all embodiments (e.g. Fig. 2a, 2b; Col. 2, ll. 33 – 35; Col. 4, ll. 47 – 59; Col. 8, ll. 1 – 11). Since Hattori identifies cases where appearance and function can suffer from such imperfect alignment (e.g. Col. 2, ll. 13 – 16), there is a suggestion in Hattori’s disclosure that providing means to correct alignment is beneficial. Lee’s advantages are beneficial as such.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the joining structure Lee discloses to comprise sets of receivers spaced apart from one another on the second surface and mating sets of plugs spaced apart from one another on the third surface, the sets of plugs configured to plug into the sets of receivers, wherein each set of receivers in the sets of receivers includes three receivers and each set of plugs in the sets of plugs includes three plugs;
a bar with an enlarged head constituting each plug in the sets of plugs;
a pair of curved strips disposed parallel to one another and defining a receptacle and constituting each receiver in the sets of receivers, the receptacle configured to receive the enlarged head; and
an overlapping joint of the first section and the second section, wherein the sets of receivers and the sets of plugs are distributed along the overlapping joint, as Lee suggests.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have made these modifications to improve any imperfect alignment after the lock structures are joined.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Hattori is considered the closest prior art and provides for the features of claim 1, which is the base claim for each of claims 9 and 10, as discussed above. The examiner observes the subject matter of claim 10 contains all the limitations of claim 9. Therefore, the following discussion principally relating to claim 9 also applies to claim 10.
While Hattori may provide for third and fourth sections (multiple pairs of “fastener members” 1, 2 which are modified per Hattori’s improvements to have features of “fastener members” 10, 12, 48, 50, 68, 70: e.g. Fig. 8a, 8b; Col. 2, ll. 1 – 16), Hattori does not disclose configuring these sections to be joined along two overlapping joints that cross one another at a point, wherein the locating feature is disposed at the point and is configured to locate the first section, the second section, the third section, and the fourth section, wherein the lock structures are distributed along the two overlapping joints.
Permesang (US 2014/0093677 A1) discloses covering elements having joining structures similar to Hattori which provide overlapping joints which cross one another at a point and have lock structure distributed along the overlapping joints (e.g. Fig. 1 – 9; ¶¶ [0001] – [0039]) but does not provide a locating feature disposed at the point. At the point of overlap, Permesang only provides lock structures, namely grooves 10, 12, 13, 20, 13a and corresponding pins/webs 16, 17, 18, 21, 18a or pins 31-34 with corresponding holes (e.g. Fig. 1 – 9; ¶¶ [0027] – [0039]).
The examiner does not consider Permesang’s grooves, pins, or webs to constitute a locating feature as required in the claims. Notably, as required of claim 1, a joining feature includes lock structures integrally formed with at least one of the first section at the second surface and the second section at the third surface to lock the first section relative to the second section when the first section and the second section are located by the locator structures (emphasis added by the examiner). Accordingly, lock structures and locator structures are distinguished in the claims (and similarly so in the instant specification). The distinction arises from the fact that a locator structure performs its function without the sections being locked, which the examiner observes cannot be said about a lock structure (Hattori’s disclosure provides an example consistent with this understanding as well, e.g. in relation to Fig. 8a and 8b before considering Hattori’s inventive disclosure to improve upon the systems of Fig. 8a and 8b).
Permesang’s lock structures do not provide locating functions as required of claims 9 and 10. At best, a lock structure in Permesang’s disclosure may be said to locate two sections at a time (e.g. the first and second sections as a pair or the third and fourth sections as a pair as shown in Permesang’s Fig. 6 and 7). As claimed, however, the locating feature has to be configured to locate all four sections, which Permesang does not provide.
For these reasons, claims 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 9, filed 4 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. This rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 9 – 13, filed 4 December 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 – 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103, as appropriate, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hattori.
Applicant asserts patentability over Morris (US 2015/0078805 A1) as cited in the Office Action mailed 5 November 2025 in that Morris fails to teach claim 1, and in particular the requirement to contain lock structures within a thickness of a combination of the first section and the second section between the first surface and the fourth surface with no opening through the first surface and the fourth surface at the joining feature so that the first surface and the fourth surface are free of features of the joining feature, where the joining feature is not visible at the first surface and the fourth surface. A similar assertion is made with respect to the requirement of claim 20, and for similar reasons as claim 1, where the joining feature does not extend through the first surface and the fourth surface.
The examiner cites Hattori for providing joining features, and their lock structures, which meet these requirements.
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 ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783