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 09/23/2025.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-8 have been amended.
Claims 3 and 9-11 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-8 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 22 “the front end transverse border line mark and the rear end transverse border line mark” should be - - the front end transverse border line marks and the rear end transverse border line marks”.
Claim 4, line 3 “that bottom inner surface” should be - - the bottom inner surface - -.
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 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peano (US Patent No. 8,104,147), in view of Hamada et al. (US Patent No. 9,072,347).
Regarding claim 1, Peano discloses a slider capable of minimizing scratching on a zipper, comprising:
a top side plate, a bottom side plate opposing the top side plate, and a link part connecting the top side plate and the bottom side plate, the bottom side plate having two side walls extending from two side edges thereof, the top side plate having a top inner surface and a top outer surface, the bottom side plate having a bottom inner surface and a bottom outer surface, and an internal passage being formed by the top inner surface, the bottom inner surface, the side walls and the link part (see annotated Figs. 6-8); and the slider being characterized in that:
a pair of parallel longitudinal grooves are formed in the bottom inner surface during a molding process to accommodate at least a part of a set of border lines of a combination mold to contain a leaked amount of a molten raw material from the border lines, so that the slider can minimize scratching on the zipper (see annotated Figs. 6-8);
wherein each of the top inner surface and the bottom inner surface has a set of border line marks, the set of border line marks including a pair of longitudinal border line marks, a front end transverse border line mark connected to each of the longitudinal border line marks, and a rear end transverse border line mark connected to each of the longitudinal border line marks, the pair of longitudinal border line marks, the front end transverse border line mark and the rear end transverse border line mark are located in the pair of parallel longitudinal grooves (see annotated Figs. 6-8).
Peano does not disclose the pair of parallel longitudinal grooves are located in and extend across a length of the bottom inner surface from a front edge of the bottom inner surface to a rear edge of the bottom inner surface.
However, Hamada et al. teaches the pair of parallel longitudinal grooves (31) are located in and extend across a length of the bottom inner surface from a front edge of the bottom inner surface to a rear edge of the bottom inner surface (see Figs. 3, 4, 7 and 9).
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 pair of parallel longitudinal grooves from Peano with a pair of parallel longitudinal grooves that extend from a front edge to a rear edge of the bottom inner surface as taught by Hamada, in order to easily slide the fastener elements.
The recitation limitation “a molding process” and “a combination mold to contain a leaked amount of a molten raw material” are directed to a product-by-process claim wherein the process relied upon are “a molding process” and “a combination mold to contain a leaked amount of a molten raw material”. This limitation is not given a patentable weight since the structural limitations of the claimed product are met.
Regarding claim 2, Peano further discloses, comprising at least one pull handle disposed on the top outer surface and/or the bottom outer surface (see annotated Figs. 6-8).
Regarding claim 4, Peano discloses, wherein a pair of top stop receiving parts are formed on the front end of the top inner surface and/or that bottom inner surface to receive a pair of top stops of the zipper, and each of the grooves is partly disposed in one of the top stop receiving parts (see annotated Figs. 6-8).
Regarding claim 5, Peano discloses the claimed invention except for the grooves each have a different width and depth. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the grooves each have a different width and depth, 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).
Regarding claim 6, Peano discloses, wherein the slider is selected from the group consisting of a pinless slider, a spring-loaded pinned slider, a press-fastened pinned slider, a spring-loaded pinned slider, a spring-loaded pinned slider for invisible zippers, and a pinless slider for invisible zippers (see annotated Figs. 6-8).
Regarding claim 7, Peano discloses the claimed invention except for the slider is an alloy metal slider or a plastic slider. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the slider is an alloy metal slider or a plastic slider, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 8, Peano discloses the claimed invention except intersections of both the front end transverse border line mark and the rear end transverse border line mark with each of the longitudinal border line marks are shaped with a beveled or rounded corner. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have intersections of both the front end transverse border line mark and the rear end transverse border line mark with each of the longitudinal border line marks are shaped with a beveled or rounded corner, 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 slider was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
PNG
media_image1.png
467
1327
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed 09/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 USC § 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 Peano, in view of Hamada et al. The combination of Peano view of Hamada et al. broadly discloses the pair of parallel longitudinal grooves (31) are located in and extend across a length of the bottom inner surface from a front edge of the bottom inner surface to a rear edge of the bottom inner surface (see Figs. 3, 4, 7 and 9 from Hamada et al.), and the pair of longitudinal border line marks, the front end transverse border line mark and the rear end transverse border line mark are located in the pair of parallel longitudinal grooves (see annotated Figs. 6-8 from Peano).
EXAMINER’S COMMENT
In view of applicant’s amendments to the claims submitted in the reply filed on 09/23/2025, the drawing objections indicated in the prior Office action have been withdrawn. The claim rejections under 35 USC § 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
Prosecution Insights