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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is an office action on the merits. Claims 1-5, as filed are currently pending and have been considered below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goepfer (FR 2,452,894) in view of Tipples (GB 2,572,803).
Regarding claim 1, Goepfer discloses a hooked clasp (B1), for use along with a second hooked clasp (B2) in a fastener (Fig. 1 as shown) for releasably securing strap ends to be adjoined, comprises
the hooked clasp having a strap attachment means (4) towards a strap end of the hooked clasp and a corresponding hook (1, 2, 5, 6, 7) further from the strap end of the hooked clasp in a longitudinal direction,
the hook having a return (8) directed towards the strap end of the clasp and thereby configured such that, when arranged with a corresponding hook on the second hooked clasp in an opposite longitudinal direction, the hook can catch the corresponding hook on the second hooked clasp (Figs. 1-5 as shown),
the hooked clasp having an orifice (Fig. 1 as shown), wherein the return and the orifice are dimensioned such that the return of the hooked clasp can pass into an orifice of the second hooked clasp without deforming the hook before the hook catches the hook on the second hooked clasp, and
wherein the return does not occupy the full thickness of the hooked clasp (A portion of Fig. 2 is reproduced below to show that the tongues 8 do not occupy the full thickness of the hooked clasp. The included double arrows are used to show the full thickness of the clasp wherein the projections 7 do not extend to this full thickness).
Goepfer fails to disclose the return having an inner side comprising a magnet.
Tipples teach a hooked clasp (10) with an inner side comprising a magnet (15).
From this teaching of Tipples, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an embedded magnet within the surface of the tongues of Goepfer. The magnet would ensure engagement of the hooks and provide positive feedback to a user when the hooks are aligned.
PNG
media_image1.png
252
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Goepfer reproduced to show the thickness of the clasp
Regarding claim 2, Goepfer further discloses wherein the hook consists of a proximal portion (1) on a lateral portion of the hooked clasp and a distal portion (7, 8), comprising the return, on the central portion of the hooked clasp, whereby the lateral portion and the distal portion are laterally separated (Fig. 1 as shown).
Regarding claim 3, Goepfer further discloses a fastener comprising a first and a second hooked clasp according to claim 1 (Fig. 1 as shown),
a first return and a second return of the hooks configured and arranged on the fastener such that a first hook can catch a second hook to releasably secure the strap ends (Fig. 4 as shown),
each of the hooked clasp having the orifice , the return and the orifice dimensioned such that, in the process of securing the strap ends,
the return of the second clasp can pass into the orifice of the first clasp and the return of the first clasp can pass into the orifice of the second clasp without deforming either of the first hook and the second hook before the first hook catches the second hook to releasably secure the strap ends (Fig. 4 as shown),
the magnets configured to cause inner surfaces of the corresponding returns to adhere when the first hook catches the second hook and the strap ends are releasably secured (the combination hooks of Goepfer and Tipples as described in claim 1 are configured in this manner).
Regarding claim 4, Goepfer further discloses wherein the first and the second hooked clasp are a single item of manufacture (Figs. 1-5 as shown).
Regarding claim 5, Goepfer further discloses wherein each of the return has an outer surface and each of the hooked clasp has an opposite surface which is on the opposite side of the clasp to the return, wherein the outer surface of return of the second clasp aligns resulting in a common surface with the opposite surface of the first clasp and the outer surface of the return of the first clasp aligns resulting in a common surface with the opposite surface of the second clasp when the first hook catches the second hook to releasably secure the strap ends (Fig. 5 as shown).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that Goepfer explicitly teaches that the depth of the boss is equal to or greater than the thickness of the arms and the crossbar of the clasp. However, this language does not align with the language as claimed. The return is required to not occupy the full thickness of the hooked clasp. As noted above, the tongue 8 only occupies about half of the thickness of the hooked clasp as shown in Fig. 2. Applicant further has argued Tipples does not disclose a return having an inner side comprising a magnet embedded. Tipples was introduced to demonstrate that the embedding of magnets within hooked clasp surfaces was known in the prior art. Including the embedded magnets within a base surface or within a return surface is still considered to be obvious.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 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.
/M.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights