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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02 December 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fiedler et al. (US 2015/0135486) further in view of Chen et al. (US 2018/0132570) further in view of Imazaike (US 4,568,206) and further in view of Fildan et al. (US 2018/0146730).
Regarding claim 1, Fiedler et al. discloses an apparatus comprising:
a first part (2) configured to be mounted on one of the pieces and a second part (3) configured to be mounted on the other of the pieces;
each of the first part and the second part comprising:
a body having a rear face (Fig. 21 shows each part 2, 3 facing each other with a rear face);
two or more hooks (220, 320) spaced apart along the rear face and extending rearwardly therefrom, each of the hooks having a roof (Fig. 21 as shown);
two or more recesses in the rear face, each recess located forward of one of the hooks and shaped to receive the roof of one of the hooks (Fig. 21 as shown); and
a magnetic attraction (Abstract lines 13-16) and magnets (23, 35) provided on first and second parts (Paragraph 36);
a magnet cavity (Figs. 20-21 show cavities formed in the rear surfaces of the first and second part) in the body of each part;
wherein the hooks of the first part are engageable with the hooks of the second part with the roof of each hook of the first part at least partially located within one of the recesses of the second part and the roof of each hook of the second part at least partially located within one of the recesses of the first part, thereby securing the two pieces of the garment together (Fig. 20 as shown).
Fiedler et al. fails to explicitly disclose how the magnets are utilized in the embodiment in Figs. 20 and 21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the provided recesses on opposite surfaces of 2 and 3 located between the read face of the body and the front side of the body (Figs. 20-21) can be used to enclose magnets in an identical manner as shown in Fig. 17C. Including magnets therein would provide an additional securement between the opposed parts and aid in engagement of the parts.
Fiedler et al. fails to disclose a cover for the magnets.
Chen et al. teach a device wherein a magnet (32) is retained by a cover (33).
From this teaching of Chen et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to include a magnet cover to the cavities of Fiedler to aid in retention of the magnet and prevent foreign ferromagnetic devices attaching themselves to the embedded magnets.
The combination of Fiedler et al. and Chen et al. fail to disclose the magnet cavity surrounded by a cavity lip projecting toward the cover and ultrasonically welded thereto by a first ultrasonic weld, and the cover including a cover lip adjacent a perimeter of the cover, projecting from an interior face of the cover toward the body, and ultrasonically welded to the body by a second ultrasonic weld; wherein the first ultrasonic weld of the cavity lip encircles the magnet cavity and the second ultrasonic weld of the cover lip encircles the first ultrasonic weld, thereby forming a waterproof seal between the cover and the body
Imazaike teach projecting lips (9b, 10a) ultrasonically welded together (Fig. 22 as shown; Column 6, lines 16-18).
From this teaching of Imazaike, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to include protruding lips surrounding the cavity to enhance the mechanical strength of the joint. Utilizing only ultrasonic welding would require reliance upon the shear strength of the welding material. Lips would aid in proper alignment and strength of bonding. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second ultrasonic weld also and lip surrounding the cavity since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Fildan et al. teach wherein the magnet cavity is waterproof (Paragraph 64, lines 1-2).
From this teaching of Fildan et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use the ultrasonic welding above to waterproof the cavity to prevent water intrusion, mildew growth and corrosion of the magnets.
Regarding claim 6, Fildan et al. further teach a hook (9) includes a lip (33) on a front side of the hook, the lip extending perpendicular to a direction of engagement.
From this teaching of Fildan et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to include a lip to the hooks of the primary reference Fiedler et al.to alleviate unintentional disengagement between the first and second parts. Additional lips would provide further interference and friction to prevent disengagement.
Regarding claim 7, Fiedler et al. further discloses wherein each of the hooks has an interior end that is tapered rearwardly (Figs. 20 and 21 as shown).
Regarding claim 8, Fiedler et al. further discloses wherein the body of each of the first part and the second part are substantially identical (Fig. 21 as shown).
Regarding claim 9, Fiedler et al. discloses the invention except for wherein the closure has a tensile strength of at least 50 pounds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use a material since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and selecting a known material matching the property would be a matter of obvious design choice. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215; In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 14, Fiedler et al. further discloses a garment (Paragraph 172 describes wherein the device can be used on a jacket or trousers) including the garment closure of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 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 as demonstrated above. Applicant has argued first and second welds are not shown or described in the applied prior art. As noted above, Imazaike teaches the inclusion of lips to further enhance bonding is considered to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Adding an additional lip and weld would further enhance this bond.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 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.
/M.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677