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 final Office action responsive to the reply filed on 06/30/2025.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 and 10 have been amended.
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 3 “project substantially beyond” should be - - project beyond - -.
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 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filus (US Publication No. 2025/0089855).
Regarding claim 1, Filus discloses a drawstring retention clasp comprising:
a front housing (see annotated Fig. 5);
a rear cover being configured to be detachably connected to said front housing (see annotated Fig. 5);
said front housing comprising a front surface and a rear surface (see annotated Fig. 5);
said rear cover comprising an engagement surface configured to be placed against said rear surface upon connection of said rear cover to said front housing (see annotated Fig. 5);
said front housing comprising a guide recess disposed in said rear surface being open-ended and configured to extend along a length of said rear surface wherein said guide recess has a single channel across said front housing (see annotated Fig. 5);
a locking projection disposed in said guide recess (see annotated Fig. 5);
said guide recess being configured to receive a drawstring of an article of clothing or a bag or object such that the drawstring extends over said locking projection (see annotated Fig. 5);
said rear cover being configured to cover said guide recess and clamp the drawstring in abutment with and between said locking projection and said engagement surface (see annotated Fig. 5); and
said rear cover having a width configured to be greater than a diameter of an opening in a guide sleeve of an article of clothing or a bag or object to minimize or prevent the drawstring clamped between said guide recess and said engagement surface from being inadvertently drawn completely into the guide sleeve (see annotated Fig. 5).
Filus discloses the claimed invention except for the guide recess has a curved surface. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the guide recess has a curved surface, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed drawstring retention clasp was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It is obvious to have a guide recess with a curved surface shape in order to be complemental with the drawstring shape.
PNG
media_image1.png
589
787
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Filus discloses, wherein:
said rear cover comprises a projection recess disposed in said engagement surface (see annotated Fig. 5); and
said locking projection and said projection recess are configured and disposed to together further lock the drawstring in place between said guide recess and said engagement surface (see annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Filus discloses, wherein:
said rear cover comprises snap-fit arms (see annotated Fig. 5); and
said front housing comprises snap-fit recesses configured and disposed to engage with said snap-fit arms to detachably connect said rear cover and said front housing (see annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Filus discloses the claimed invention except for the front housing is rectangular. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the front housing is rectangular, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed the drawstring retention clasp was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It is obvious to have a rectangular housing for aesthetic reasons.
Regarding claim 5, Filus discloses the claimed invention except for the rear cover is oval-shaped or elliptical such that ends thereof project beyond outer edges of the front housing. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the rear cover is oval-shaped or elliptical such that ends thereof project beyond outer edges of the front housing, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed the drawstring retention clasp was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It is obvious to have an oval-shaped cover larger than the housing for aesthetic reasons.
Regarding claim 6, Filus discloses, wherein one of (A) and (B):
(A) said front surface comprises a decorative image or design (see Fig. 1 and abstract, lines 11 and 12); and
(B) said front surface comprises a transparent plate; and
said front housing comprises a slot disposed behind said transparent plate configured to receive a sheet bearing an image or design thereon.
Regarding claim 7, Filus discloses, wherein said rear cover comprises a decorative image or design (see Fig. 1 and abstract, lines 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 8, Filus discloses, wherein:
said rear cover comprises snap-fit arms; and
said front housing comprises snap-fit recesses configured and disposed to engage with said snap-fit arms to detachably connect said rear cover and said front housing (see annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Filus discloses the claimed invention except for the front housing is rectangular. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the front housing is rectangular, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed the drawstring retention clasp was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It is obvious to have a rectangular housing for aesthetic reasons.
Regarding claim 10, Filus discloses the claimed invention except for the rear cover is oval-shaped or elliptical such that ends thereof project beyond outer edges of the front housing. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the rear cover is oval-shaped or elliptical such that ends thereof project beyond outer edges of the front housing, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape of the claimed the drawstring retention clasp was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It is obvious to have an oval-shaped cover larger than the housing for aesthetic reasons.
Regarding claim 11, Filus discloses, wherein said front surface comprises a decorative image or design (see Fig. 1 and abstract, lines 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 13, Filus discloses, wherein said rear cover comprises a decorative image or design (see Fig. 1 and abstract, lines 11 and 12).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filus (US Publication No. 2025/0089855), in view of Dow (US Patent No. 2,411,368).
Regarding claim 12, Filus does not disclose said front surface comprises a transparent plate; and said front housing comprises a slot disposed behind said transparent plate configured to receive a sheet bearing an image or design thereon. However, Dow teaches a transparent plate (19), and a slot (20) disposed behind said transparent plate (19) (see Figs. 3 and 5). 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 modify the front surface of the front housing with a transparent sheet with a pocket in order to insert a message or phrases as taught by Dow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6 and 7, filed 06/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 USC § 102 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 Filus (US Publication No. 2025/0089855). Filus broadly discloses the guide recess has a single channel across the front housing; a locking projection disposed in the guide recess; the guide recess being configured to receive a drawstring of an article of clothing or a bag or object such that the drawstring extends over the locking projection (see annotated Fig. 5);
Examiner’s Comment
In view of applicant’s amendments to the claims submitted in the reply filed on 06/30/2025, the claim rejections under 35 USC § 112 & § 102 indicated in the prior Office action have been withdrawn.
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 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