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 .
This is a non-final Office action responsive to the reply filed on 04/28/2026.
Claims 1-3 and 10 have been amended.
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/28/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 3 “a back surface side of the tape is smaller than that on a front surface side” should be - - the back surface of the tape is smaller than that on the front surface - -.
Claim 10, line 5 “from front surfaces” should be - - from the front surfaces - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamayama et al. (US Patent No. 10,433,620), in view of Selwyn (US Publication No. 2017/0029663 cited by applicant), and Jyogan et al. (US Publication No. 2021/0196010).
Regarding claim 1, Kamayama et al. discloses a fastener chain comprising:
a pair of tapes that are opposite to each other in a width direction and are made of fibers (see annotated Fig. 2, and Col. 6, line 42-44);
a pair of element rows that are separately fixed to opposite side edge portions on back surfaces of front surfaces and the back surfaces of the pair of tapes and are in an engaged state (see annotated Fig. 2),
wherein each of the tapes is a woven object or a knitted object (see annotated Fig. 2, and Col. 6, line 42-44), and
wherein a pull (15) is disposed on a front side of the fastener chain (see Fig. 1 and annotated Fig. 2).
Kamayama et al. does not disclose an organic polymer and a non-fluorine-based water repellent component adhere to the pair of tapes in a state of entering an inside thereof from the front surfaces to the back surfaces of the tapes,
wherein the organic polymer and the non-fluorine-based water repellent component do not substantially adhere to the element rows through a gap between the pair of tapes.
However, Selwyn teaches an organic polymer (see paragraph [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the organic polymer inside the pair of woven tapes from Kamayama in order to make the fabric hydrophilic as taught by Selwyn.
Also, Jyogan et al. teaches a non-fluorine-based water repellent component adhere to the pair of tapes in a state of entering an inside thereof (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add organic polymer and non-fluorine- based water repellent component to the fastener chain from Kamayama, in order to lower the water repellent property.
It would have been obvious that adhering the organic polymer and the non-fluorine- based water repellent component to any surfaces of the fastener chain, such as the front surfaces and the back surfaces of the tapes and not the element rows, is a matter of a person of ordinary skill in the art to appropriately set for the application of the fastener chain, for the user application being used.
PNG
media_image1.png
409
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kamayama et al. discloses a fastener chain comprising:
a pair of tapes that are opposite to each other in a width direction and are made of fibers (see annotated Fig. 2, and Col. 6, line 42-44);
a pair of element rows that are separately fixed to opposite side edge portions on back surfaces of front surfaces and the back surfaces of the pair of tapes and are in an engaged state (see annotated Fig. 2),
wherein each of the tapes is a woven object or a knitted object (see annotated Fig. 2, and Col. 6, line 42-44), and
wherein a pull (15) is disposed on a front side of the fastener chain (see Fig. 1 and annotated Fig. 2).
Kamayama et al. does not disclose an organic polymer and a non-fluorine-based water repellent component adhere to the pair of tapes in a state of entering an inside thereof,
wherein an adhesion amount of the non-fluorine-based water repellent component on the element rows is less than 0.14% of an adhesion amount of the non-fluorine-based water repellent component on the tapes on a weight ratio basis.
However, Selwyn teaches an organic polymer (see paragraph [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the organic polymer inside the pair of woven tapes from Kamayama in order to make the fabric hydrophilic as taught by Selwyn.
Also, Jyogan et al. teaches the non-fluorine-based water repellent component adhere to the pair of tapes in a state of entering an inside thereof, and wherein an adhesion amount of the non-fluorine-based water repellent component on the element rows is less than 0.14% of an adhesion amount of the non-fluorine-based water repellent component on the tapes on a weight ratio basis (see abstract and paragraph [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add organic polymer and non-fluorine- based water repellent component to the fastener chain from Kamayama, in order to lower the water repellent property.
Regarding claim 4, the combination Kamayama et al., in view of Selwyn, and Jyogan et al. discloses, wherein the organic polymer and the non-fluorine-based water repellent component adhere to core strings that extend along the side edge portions of the tapes by following sewing threads that fix the pair of element rows to the tapes (see annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, the combination Kamayama et al., in view of Selwyn, and Jyogan et al. discloses the claimed invention except for an adhesion amount on a back surface side of the tape is smaller than that on a front surface side. It would have been an obvious setting the amount of adhesion on the surface sides is a matter for a person of ordinary skill in the art to appropriately set for the application of the fastener chain, in order to be used on an article.
Regarding claim 6, combination Kamayama et al., in view of Selwyn, and Jyogan et al. discloses the claimed invention except for an adhesion amount on the pair of tapes per surface area is 9 g/m² to 22.5 g/m². It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to an adhesion amount on the pair of tapes per surface area is 9 g/m² to 22.5 g/m², since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In order to have the proper adhesion amount on the fastener chain that will perform as intendent.
Regarding claim 7, the combination Kamayama et al., in view of Selwyn, and Jyogan et al. discloses, wherein in addition to the pair of tapes, the organic polymer and the non-fluorine- based water repellent component adhere to an installation region installed onto the tape among surfaces facing a side of the tape, which are front surfaces of the pair of element rows, in a state of permeating from the inside of the pair of tapes (see annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, the combination Kamayama et al., in view of Selwyn, and Jyogan et al. discloses the claimed invention except for adhere to the pair of tapes other than the back surfaces. It would be obvious that adhering to any surface of the fastener chain is a matter for a person of ordinary skill in the art to appropriately set for the application of the fastener chain, in order to be used on an article.
Regarding claim 9, the combination Kamayama et al., in view of Selwyn, and Jyogan et al. discloses the claimed invention except for not adhere to the pair of element rows. It would have been obvious that not to adhere to the pair of element rows is a matter of a person of ordinary skill in the art to appropriately set for the application of the fastener chain, in order to be used on an article.
Regarding claim 10, the combination Kamayama et al., in view of Selwyn, and Jyogan et al. discloses, wherein the element row is a monofilament extending in a longitudinal direction of the core string in a state of being entangled with the core string (see annotated Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 from Kamayama et al.), and
wherein the organic polymer and the non-fluorine-based water repellent component adhere to the core string in a state of permeating from front surfaces of a pair of monofilaments in addition to the pair of tapes and the pair of monofilaments (see annotated Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 from Kamayama et al.).
Regarding claim 11, the combination Kamayama et al., in view of Selwyn, and Jyogan et al. discloses the claimed invention except for an adhesion amount on the core string is smaller than that on a back surface side of the tape on a weight ratio basis. It would have been an obvious setting that the amount of adhesion to the core string surface is a matter of a person of ordinary skill in the art to appropriately set for the application of the fastener chain, in order to be used on an article.
Regarding claim 12, the combination Kamayama et al., in view of Selwyn, and Jyogan et al. discloses, wherein the non-fluorine-based water repellent component is a silicone oil-based component (see paragraph [0005] from Jyogan).
Regarding claim 13, Kamayama et al. discloses a slide fastener comprising:
the fastener chain (see Fig. 3); and
a slider attached to the pair of element rows of the fastener chain (see annotated Fig. 2).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamayama et al. (US Patent No. 10,433,620), in view of Selwyn (US Publication No. 2017/0029663 cited by applicant), Jyogan et al. (US Publication No. 2021/0196010), and Honna (US Publication No. 2003/0157852).
Regarding claim 3, Kamayama et al. discloses a fastener chain comprising:
a pair of tapes that are opposite to each other in a width direction and are made of fibers (see annotated Fig. 2, and Col. 6, line 42-44);
a pair of element rows that are separately fixed to opposite side edge portions on back surfaces of front surfaces and the back surfaces of the pair of tapes and are in an engaged state (see annotated Fig. 2),
wherein each of the tapes is a woven object or a knitted object (see annotated Fig. 2, and Col. 6, line 42-44), and
wherein a pull (15) is disposed on a front side of the fastener chain (see Fig. 1 and annotated Fig. 2).
Kamayama et al. does not disclose an organic polymer and a non-fluorine-based water repellent component adhere to the pair of tapes in a state of entering an inside thereof,
wherein an adhesion amount of the organic polymer and the non-fluorine-based water repellent component on the tapes is an amount in which a maximum load measured such that a width of one of the tapes is 16 mm and a length in a longitudinal direction of a portion to be a loop portion in a loop compression method is 80 mm is 0.1 N or less in a flexibility test method according to a C method (the loop compression method) of 8.22.3 of JIS-L-1096: 2010; and
However, Selwyn teaches an organic polymer (see paragraph [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the organic polymer inside the pair of woven tapes from Kamayama in order to make the fabric hydrophilic as taught by Selwyn.
Jyogan et al. teaches a non-fluorine-based water repellent component adhere to the pair of tapes in a state of entering an inside thereof (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add organic polymer and non-fluorine- based water repellent component to the fastener chain from Kamayama, in order to lower the water repellent property.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a width of one of the tapes is 16 mm and a length in a longitudinal direction of a portion to be a loop portion in is 80 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner V. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is obvious to have different tapes size for different data test result.
Also, Honna teaches a maximum load is 0.1 N or less in a flexibility test method according to a C method (the loop compression method) of 8.22.3 of JIS-L- 1096:2010. (see paragraph [0096]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do a compression test on the fastener chain of Kamayama, in order to measure the flexibility or softness of the fabric tape.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 Kamayama et al. (US Patent No. 10,433,620), in view of Selwyn (US Publication No. 2017/0029663 cited by applicant), and Jyogan et al. (US Publication No. 2021/0196010). Kamayama et al. discloses a pull (15) that is disposed on a front side of the fastener chain (see Fig. 1 and annotated Fig. 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUIS A MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-5388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, Jason W. San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/LOUIS A. MERCADO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights