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 09/14/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 14 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 16-20 have been canceled.
Claims 1-15 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/14/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 8 “a first side of the surface anchor component is coupled to the third interlocking component and the second side of the surface anchor component is couplable to a surface, the second side of the surface anchor component being opposite the first side of the surface anchor component” appears to be misdescriptive according to Fig. 5, it should be - - a first side of the third track is coupled to the third interlocking component and a second side of the third track is couplable to a surface, the second side of the third track being opposite the first side of the third track - -.
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.
Claim 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (US Patent No. 8,083,040), in view of Popovski (US Patent No. 11,827,111).
Regarding claim 1, Chiang discloses an interlocking device configured to couple to an object, the interlocking device comprising:
a track (see annotated Fig. 4) including:
a hollow tubular sleeve configured to couple securely to the object (3) received within the sleeve by conforming to an external shape of the object (3) upon application of heat (a flat hollow tubular sleeve, see annotated Fig. 4),
a gap extending longitudinally along a first side of the sleeve (see annotated Fig. 4), and
an interlocking component connected to, and extending longitudinally along, a second side of the sleeve, the second side being opposite the first side (see annotated Fig. 4).
Chiang does not disclose a heat-shrinkable tubing.
However, Popovski teaches an analogous heat-shrinkable tubing (64) (heat shrinkable elastic polymer band, see Figs. 4 and 5, 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 modify the tubular sleeve material from Chiang with heat shrinkable elastic polymer band as taught by Popovski in order to seal the band and an object together and avoid leakage.
The recitation limitation “upon application of heat” is directed to a product-by-process claim wherein the process relied upon is “application of heat”. This limitation is not given a patentable weight since the structural limitations of the claimed product are met.
Regarding claim 2, Chiang discloses, wherein:
the track is a first track (see annotated Fig. 4);
the sleeve is a first sleeve (see annotated Fig. 4);
the gap is a first gap (see annotated Fig. 4);
the interlocking component is a first interlocking component (see annotated Fig. 4); and
the interlocking device further comprises:
a second track that is engageable with the first track (see annotated Fig. 4), the second track including:
a second sleeve (see annotated Fig. 4),
a second gap extending longitudinally along a first side of the second sleeve (see annotated Fig. 4), and
a second interlocking component extending longitudinally along a second side of the second sleeve, the second side of the second sleeve being opposite the first side of the second sleeve, and the second interlocking component configured to engage with the first interlocking component (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Chiang discloses, wherein the interlocking component and the second side of the sleeve are spatially separated and interconnected via a strip of material that extends an entire length of the interlocking component (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Chiang discloses, wherein the interlocking component is one of a row of teeth, a continuous interlocking structure, a hook and loop fastener component, magnets, buttons, or clasps (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Chiang discloses an interlocking system comprising:
a track (see annotated Fig. 4) including:
a hollow tubular sleeve configured to couple securely to an object (3) by conforming to an external shape of the object (3) upon deforming the sleeve via deformation of the sleeve thereon (a flat hollow tubular sleeve, see annotated Fig. 4),
a gap extending longitudinally along a first side of the sleeve (see annotated Fig. 4),
a first edge of a strip of material connected to a second side of the sleeve and extending longitudinally along the second side of the sleeve, the second side of the sleeve being opposite the first side of the sleeve (see annotated Fig. 4), and
an interlocking component connected to a second edge of the strip of material and extending longitudinally along the second edge of the strip of material (see annotated Fig. 4).
Chiang does not disclose a plastically deformable tubing.
However, Popovski teaches an analogous plastically deformable tubing (64) made from polyolefin (heat shrinkable elastic polymer band, see Figs. 4 and 5, abstract, and Col. 2, lines 5-7)
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 tubular sleeve material from Chiang with a plastic material made of polyolefin as taught by Popovski in order to seal the band and an object together and avoid leakage.
Regarding claim 10, Chiang discloses, wherein:
the track is a first track (see annotated Fig. 4);
the sleeve is a first sleeve (see annotated Fig. 4);
the gap is a first gap (see annotated Fig. 4);
the strip of material is a first strip of material (see annotated Fig. 4);
the interlocking component is a first interlocking component (see annotated Fig. 4); and
the interlocking system further comprises:
a second track that is engageable with the first track (see annotated Fig. 4), the second track including:
a second sleeve (see annotated Fig. 4),
a second gap extending longitudinally along a first side of the second sleeve (see annotated Fig. 4),
a first edge of a second strip of material connected to a second side of the second sleeve and extending longitudinally along the second side of the second sleeve, the second side of the second sleeve being opposite the first side of the second sleeve (see annotated Fig. 4), and
a second interlocking component connected to a second edge of the second strip of material and extending longitudinally along the second edge of the second strip of material, the second interlocking component configured to engage with the first interlocking component (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Chiang discloses, wherein the second interlocking component is one of a row of teeth, a continuous interlocking structure, a hook and loop fastener component, magnets, buttons, or clasps (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Chiang discloses wherein the interlocking component is configured to engage with the second interlocking component upon longitudinal manipulation of a sliding joiner piece (see annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
468
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (US Patent No. 8,083,040), in view of Popovski (US Patent No. 11,827,111) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sunkara et al. (US Publication No. 2023/039988).
Regarding claim 3, Chiang further discloses, comprising:
a sleeve engagement piece configured to couple with at least one of the first sleeve or the second sleeve (see annotated Fig. 4).
Chiang as modified by Popovski does not disclose a third track including:
a third interlocking component that is configured to engage with at least one of the first interlocking component or the second interlocking component; and a surface anchor component, wherein a first side of the surface anchor component is coupled to the third interlocking component and the second side of the surface anchor component is couplable to a surface, the second side of the surface anchor component being opposite the first side of the surface anchor component.
However, Sunkara et al. teaches a third track comprising:
a third interlocking component that is configured to engage with at least one of the first interlocking component or the second interlocking component; and
a surface anchor component, wherein a first side of the surface anchor component is coupled to the third interlocking component and the second side of the surface anchor component is couplable to a surface, the second side of the surface anchor component being opposite the first side of the surface anchor component (see annotated Fig. 31).
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 engage the first interlocking component or the second interlocking component from Chiang with the third interlocking component in order to replace the zipper elements with a magnetic closure and have a self-closing barrier seal without using the zipper as taught by Sunkara.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chiang in view of Popovski and Sunkara et al. discloses, wherein the surface anchor component is couplable to the surface utilizing at least one of adhesion, magnetism, suction, tension, pressure, or force.
(magnets, see paragraph [0148], lines 1-3).
PNG
media_image2.png
483
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (US Patent No. 8,083,040), in view of Popovski (US Patent No. 11,827,111) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Cheng (US Publication No. 2008/0007940).
Regarding claim 6, Chiang as modified by Popovski does not disclose the strip of material contains part of a circuit.
However, Cheng teaches the strip of material contains part of a circuit (see Fig. 3 and 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 use the luminescent zipper device (as shown in Cheng) with the strip of material (as shown in Chiang) to emit the luminescence through receiving a power source with a principle of transforming electricity into luminescence, thereby being convenient to use, and having a high safety feature.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chiang, in view of Popovski, and further in view of Cheng discloses wherein the part of the circuit is one of one or more optical fibers or one or more electrical conductors (21) (see Fig. 3 and abstract from Cheng).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (US Patent No. 8,083,040), in view of Popovski (US Patent No. 11,827,111) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Cheng (US Publication No. 2008/0007940).
Regarding claim 11, Chiang as modified by Popovski does not disclose the strip of material contains part of a circuit.
However, Cheng teaches the strip of material contains part of a circuit (see Fig. 3 and 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 use the luminescent zipper device (as shown in Cheng) with the strip of material (as shown in Chiang) to emit the luminescence through receiving a power source with a principle of transforming electricity into luminescence, thereby being convenient to use, and having a high safety feature.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Chiang, in view of Popovski, and further in view of Cheng discloses wherein the part of the circuit is one of one or more optical fibers or one or more electrical conductors (21) (see Fig. 3 and abstract from Cheng).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Chiang, in view of Popovski, and further in view of Cheng discloses wherein the part of the circuit is configured to couple with one or more circuit interaction components (22) (see Fig. 3 and abstract from Cheng).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9 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.
Examiner’s Comment
In view of applicant’s amendments to the claims submitted in the reply filed on 09/14/2026, the claim rejections under 35 USC § 102 indicated in the prior Office action have been withdrawn.
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