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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baranowske, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0279016) in view of Plourde et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0346083).
Regarding claims 1 & 8: Baranowske discloses a zipper assembly and method for a resealable enclosure, the zipper assembly comprising:
an elongated flange having a panel side and an opposite interlocking side (Fig. 1; via flanges 20/24), the panel side configured to be coupled with a panel of the resealable enclosure (“configured to” be coupled with 12 and/or 16/18);
interlocking elements protruding from the interlocking side of the flange (via 12 and 16/18), the interlocking elements shaped to mate with each other to close the enclosure and shaped to be pulled apart to open the enclosure; and
an alignment body coupled with the panel side of the flange (via 6 and/or 8), the alignment body of first segments of the flange configured to stick with one or more of the panel sides of second segments of the flange or the alignment body on the second segments of the flange while the flange is wound onto a spool, see for example (Fig. 3; via the alignment bodies 6/8 are “configured to” stick with the flanges 20/24).
Baranowske does not disclose the amended claims referring to an alignment body of the zipper assembly to be in different material than the elongated flange. However, Plourde discloses similar zipper assembly with a use of alignment body to be made of different material than the flange and remaining of the zipper assembly, see for example (Fig. 4; via portion 420 & paragraph 0047; “portions 420 may include stiffer materials (e.g., stiffer or more resilient to bending) than the materials from which other portions of the zipper assembly 704 and/or enclosure 100 is formed.”), inherently “stiffer materials” being “resilient to bending” is capable of and could be used for stability and aligning purposes (intended use limitations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Baranowske’s zipper assembly, by having a different body by the flange made with different stiffing and unbending material to serve as an alignment portion, as suggested by Plourde, in order to improve the locking and zipper members (paragraph 0007-0008).
Regarding claim 2: Baranowske discloses that the alignment body is configured to stick with the flange to prevent the flange from laterally moving relative to itself while on the spool (via alignment bodies 6/8 “configured to” stick with flanges 20/24).
Regarding claim 3: Baranowske discloses the alignment body is formed from a polymer material, see for example (paragraph 0033; “preferred thermoplastic materials are polyethylene…polymer rubber resin blend”).
Regarding claim 4: Baranowske discloses that the alignment body is formed from a first material that differs from a second material from which the flange is formed (paragraphs 0013 & 0017; “extruded plastic fastener tapes having different structures”).
Regarding claim 5: Baranowske discloses the alignment body has greater tackiness when engaging the flange than the flange has when engaging itself, see for example (Fig. 1; via the shown tackiness of 6/8 vs the one for 20/24).
Regarding claim 6: Baranowske discloses that the alignment body is configured to stick to the flange and require a lesser force to separate the first segments of the flange from the second segments of the flange than separating the interlocking elements from each other, see for example (Figs. 1-3; via alignment bodies 6/8 sticking to flanges 20/24).
Regarding claim 7: Baranowske discloses the alignment body and the interlocking elements are disposed opposite each other on opposite sides of the flange, see for example (Fig. 1; via the location of the alignment bodies 6/8 in respect to flanges 20/24).
Regarding claim 9: Baranowske discloses that the alignment body is formed to stick with the flange to prevent the flange from laterally moving relative to itself while on the spool, (via alignment bodies 6/8 “configured to” stick with flanges 20/24).
Regarding claim 10: Baranowske discloses that the alignment body is formed from a polymer material, see for example (paragraph 0033; “preferred thermoplastic materials are polyethylene…polymer rubber resin blend”).
Regarding claim 11: Baranowske discloses the alignment body is formed from a first material that differs from a second material that the flange is formed, (paragraphs 0013 & 0017; “extruded plastic fastener tapes having different structures”).
Regarding claim 12: Baranowske discloses the alignment body is formed to have greater tackiness when engaging the flange than the flange has when engaging itself, see for example (Fig. 1; via the shown tackiness of 6/8 vs the one for 20/24).
Regarding claim 13: Baranowske discloses that the alignment body is formed to stick to the flange and require a lesser force to separate the first segments of the flange from the second segments of the flange than separating the interlocking elements from each other, see for example (Figs. 1-3; via alignment bodies 6/8 sticking to flanges 20/24).
Regarding claim 14: Baranowske discloses the flange is formed as a first elongated body that extends from a first end to an opposite, second end, and the alignment body is formed as a second elongated body that extends along the flange in a direction that extends from the first end of the flange toward the second end of the flange, see for example (Fig. 1; via the location of the alignment bodies 6/8 in respect to flanges 20/24).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In respect to applicant’s arguments that the applied art of record of Baranowske ‘016 does not disclose the claimed alignment body made of different material than the elongated flange and configured to stick with one or more panel sides of second segments of the flange nor the alignment body on the second segments of the flange while the flange is wound onto a spool.
The Office as set forth above and in the prior communication, believes that 016 shows the claimed zipper assembly with flange wound onto a spool (Fig. 3), while portion of the zipper could be considered as an alignment body (Fig. 1; via 6/8).
Being that explained, the Office further provided a secondary applied art of Plourde ‘083 showing similar zipper assembly with the use of portion on the zipper made of different stiffing and un-bendable material, see for example (Fig. 4; via portion 420 & paragraph 0047; “portions 420 may include stiffer materials (e.g., stiffer or more resilient to bending) than the materials from which other portions of the zipper assembly 704 and/or enclosure 100 is formed.”). It is noted that ‘083’s “stiffer materials” 420, while being “resilient to bending” inherently capable of and could be used for stability and aligning purposes (intended use arguments and/or limitations of the actual “alignment body”).
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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights