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 08/31/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 15 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 13 have been canceled.
Claims 21 and 22 were added.
Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-22 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/31/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendment filed on 08/31/2026 introduces new matter that is not supported in the originally filed disclosure. The claimed subject matter pertaining to “wherein each of the first slot and the second slot is dimensioned to pass the piping rail therethrough such that the first collar is attachable to and detachable from the piping rail through the first slot and the second collar is attachable to and detachable from the piping rail through the second slot” constitutes new matter since the originally filed disclosure fails to support this claimed subject matter.
Claims 3-12, 14 and 16-18, 20-22 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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, 3-12 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara et al. (EP 2,277,399 A1 cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Kawahara et al. discloses a split piping slider configured to attach to a fabric article via piping rail, the split piping slider comprising:
an attachment structure having a first end and a second end (see annotated Fig. 8);
a first collar coupled to the attachment structure at the first end to define a first connection region and configured to attach to or slide along the piping rail (see annotated Figs. 1a and 8); and
a second collar coupled to the attachment structure at the second end to define a second connection region and configured to attach to or slide along the piping rail (see annotated Figs. 1a and 8),
wherein, in response to applying a tensile force to the attachment structure, the split piping slider is configured to flex at one or more points along the attachment structure or at the first connection region and the second connection region (see annotated Fig. 8),
wherein the first collar comprises a first channel configured to receive at least a first portion of the piping rail via a first slot and the second collar comprises a second channel configured to receive at least a second portion of the piping rail via a second slot (see annotated Figs. 1a and 8),
wherein the first slot creates a split in the first collar (see annotated Figs. 1a), and
wherein the second slot creates a split in the second collar (see annotated Figs. 1a).
wherein each of the first slot and the second slot is dimensioned to pass the piping rail therethrough such that the first collar is attachable to and detachable from the piping rail through the first slot and the second collar is attachable to and detachable from the piping rail through the second slot (see annotated Figs. 1a and 8).
Kawahara et al. discloses two separate piping rails (see annotated Fig. 8). 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 combine the two piping rails into one elongated piping rail in order to keep both collars aligned to each other.
Also, Kawahara et al. discloses a slot with a complete split (see Fig. 12a). 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 each of the first collar and the second collar with a slot that has a complete split, in order to facilitate to enter the piping rail from a left or right side of the collar.
Regarding claim 3, Kawahara et al. discloses, wherein the first channel defines a first axis and the second channel defines a second axis (see annotated Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Kawahara et al. discloses, wherein the first axis and the second axis are parallel or concentric in an absence of the tensile force (see annotated Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Kawahara et al. discloses, wherein the first axis and the second axis are transverse in response to applying a tensile force (see annotated Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Kawahara et al. discloses, wherein the split piping slider is configured to flex at one or more points along the attachment structure (see annotated Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Kawahara et al. discloses, wherein the split piping slider is configured to flex at the first connection region and the second connection region (see annotated Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, Kawahara et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a diameter of each of the first channel and the second channel is between 4mm and 5mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a diameter of each of the first channel and the second channel is between 4mm and 5mm, 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). It is obvious to have a channel with a specific diameter size in order to be able to insert a piping rail.
Regarding claim 9, Kawahara et al. discloses, wherein the attachment structure, the first collar, and the second collar collectively define a C-shaped profile (see annotated Figs. 1a and 8).
Regarding claim 10, Kawahara et al. discloses, wherein the attachment structure is linear (it is inherent by stretching the attachment structure it will be linear, see annotated Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 11, Kawahara et al. discloses, wherein the attachment structure is curved (see annotated Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 12, Kawahara et al. discloses, wherein the attachment structure is a handle (see annotated Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 14, Kawahara et al. discloses, wherein the attachment structure is a webbing bar (see annotated Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 15, Kawahara et al. discloses a split piping slider configured to attach to a fabric article via piping rail, the split piping slider comprising:
a webbing rod having a first end and a second end, the webbing rod configured to attach with a webbing strap (see annotated Fig. 8);
a first collar coupled to the webbing rod at the first end to define a first connection region and configured to attach to or slide along the piping rail (see annotated Figs. 1a and 8),
wherein the first collar comprises a first channel configured to receive at least a first portion of the piping rail via a first slot (see annotated Figs. 1a and 8),
wherein the first slot creates a split in the first collar (see annotated Figs. 1a); and
a second collar coupled to the webbing rod at the second end to define a second connection region and configured to attach to or slide along the piping rail (see annotated Figs. 1a and 8),
wherein the second collar comprises a second channel configured to receive at least a second portion of the piping rail via a second slot (see annotated Figs. 1a and 8),
wherein the second slot creates a split in the second collar (see annotated Figs. 1a),
wherein each of the first slot and the second slot is dimensioned to pass the piping rail therethrough such that the first collar is attachable to and detachable from the piping rail through the first slot and the second collar is attachable to and detachable from the piping rail through the second slot (see annotated Figs. 1a and 8), and
wherein, in response to applying a tensile force to the webbing rod, the split piping slider is configured to flex at one or more points along the webbing rod or at the first connection region and the second connection region (see annotated Figs. 1a and 8).
Kawahara et al. discloses two separate piping rails (see annotated Fig. 8). 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 combine the two piping rails into one elongated piping rail in order to keep both collars aligned to each other.
Also, Kawahara et al. discloses a slot with a complete split (see Fig. 12a). 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 each of the first collar and the second collar with a slot that has a complete split, in order to facilitate to enter the piping rail from a left or right side of the collar.
Regarding claim 16, Kawahara et al. discloses, wherein the first channel defines a first axis and the second channel defines a second axis (see annotated Fig. 8), and
wherein the first axis and the second axis are parallel or concentric in an absence of the tensile force (see annotated Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 17, Kawahara et al. discloses, wherein the first channel defines a first axis and the second channel defines a second axis (see annotated Fig. 8), and
wherein the first axis and the second axis are transverse in response to applying a tensile force (see annotated Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 18, Kawahara et al. discloses, wherein material thickness is reduced to redistribute stress to localize flexibility at the one or more points along the webbing rod or at the first connection region and the second connection region (see annotated Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 19, Kawahara et al. discloses a split piping slider configured to attach to a fabric article via piping rail, the split piping slider comprising:
a webbing rod having a first end and a second end, the webbing rod configured to attach with a webbing strap (see annotated Fig. 8);
a first collar coupled to the webbing rod at the first end to define a first connection region and configured to attach to or slide along the piping rail (see annotated Figs. 1a and 8),
wherein the first collar comprises a first channel configured to receive at least a first portion of the piping rail via a first slot (see annotated Figs. 1a and 8),
wherein the first slot creates a split in the first collar (see annotated Figs. 1a); and
a second collar coupled to the webbing rod at the second end to define a second connection region and configured to attach to or slide along the piping rail (see annotated Figs. 1a and 8),
wherein the second collar comprises a second channel configured to receive at least a second portion of the piping rail via a second slot (see annotated Figs. 1a and 8),
wherein the second slot creates a split in the second collar (see annotated Figs. 1a),
wherein each of the first slot and the second slot is dimensioned to pass the piping rail therethrough such that the first collar is attachable to and detachable from the piping rail through the first slot and the second collar is attachable to and detachable from the piping rail through the second slot (see annotated Figs. 1a and 8), and
wherein, in response to applying a tensile force to the webbing rod, the split piping slider is configured to flex at one or more points along the webbing rod or at the first connection region and the second connection region such that the first collar and the second collar are torqued toward each other (it is inherent after applying a tensile force the first collar and the second collar will torque toward each other, see annotated Figs. 1a and 8).
Kawahara et al. discloses two separate piping rails (see annotated Fig. 8). 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 combine the two piping rails into one elongated piping rail in order to keep both collars aligned to each other.
Also, Kawahara et al. discloses a slot with a complete split (see Fig. 12a). 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 each of the first collar and the second collar with a slot that has a complete split, in order to facilitate to enter the piping rail from a left or right side of the collar.
Regarding claim 20, Kawahara et al. discloses, wherein material thickness is reduced to redistribute stress to localize flexibility at the one or more points along the webbing rod or at the first connection region and the second connection region (see annotated Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 21, Kawahara et al. does not disclose, wherein the attachment structure, the first collar, and the second collar are integrally formed as a single piece. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the attachment structure, the first collar, and the second collar are integrally formed as a single piece, in order to facilitate during manufacturing, since it has been held that the term “integrally” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973). It will be obvious to make an attachment structure with two collars such as a handle to reduce manufacturing parts.
Regarding claim 22, Kawahara et al. discloses, wherein the split piping slider is configured to flex such that the first collar and the second collar are torqued toward each other in response to the tensile force (it is inherent after applying a tensile force the first collar and the second collar will torque toward each other, see annotated Figs. 1a and 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
589
949
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleged that Kawahara does not disclose each of the first slot and the second slot is dimensioned to pass the piping rail therethrough such that the first collar is attachable to and detachable from the piping rail through the first slot and the second collar is attachable to and detachable from the piping rail through the second slot. The examiner disagrees because Kawahara broadly discloses that each of the first slot and the second slot is dimensioned to pass the piping rail therethrough such that the first collar is attachable to and detachable from the piping rail through the first slot and the second collar is attachable to and detachable from the piping rail through the second slot (see annotated Figs. 1a and 8). The first collar is capable of attachable to and detachable from the piping rail through the first slot and the second collar is capable of attachable to and detachable from the piping rail through the second slot.
Applicant’s arguments are more limiting than the claimed invention.
Examiner’s Comment
In view of applicant’s amendments to the claims submitted in the reply filed on 08/31/2026, the claim objections 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