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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 7-11 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.
Regarding the amended subject matter directed toward the “angled edge on an interior”, Examiner notes that these limitations have support in the specification, but are not narrowly defined or supported in the specification and are therefore given little patentable weight. There is no reference numeral explicitly referring to the angled edge and fig. 11 shows element 1120 as a raised flange that does appear to have a chamfer, fillet or round, however, chamfer, filleted or rounded edges are notoriously old and well known in the mechanical arts. Although it is not entirely clear which angled edge is being referred to, the prior arts appear to meet this claim limitation. Furthermore, the claim language presents as indefinite even if the structures disclosed have support.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 depends from a canceled claim.
Claims 10-11 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites the limitation “1115” which appears to be a reference numeral. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitations “an angled edge on an interior of slider garage and provides for a gradual transition from the male portion to the interior” is unclear. It is unclear if the interior being referred to is bounded by the garage or a female part of the garage. Examiner cannot clearly determine what the metes-and-bounds of “the interior” are.
Claim 11 is rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusayama, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0067969 in view of Martinson, U.S. Patent 9,795,195.
Kusayama teaches:
a slider garage (1) at one end of the zipper, the slider garage having a u-shape (see fig.
1), the u-shape having a first side of the slider garage (see below) and a second side of the slider garage (see below) opposing each other and a third side between the first and the second side (see below);
a first flange (see below), wherein the first flange provides give and flexion to the zipper.
Kusayama does not teach;
A male zipper side;
A female zipper side;
A second flange, the second flange extending form the slider garage, wherein the second flange is attached to the first flange to attached the slider garage.
Martinson teaches:
A male zipper side (105);
A female zipper side (110);
A first flange (130 or 135)…a second flange (see below), the second flange extending form the slider garage, wherein the second flange is attached to the first flange to attached the slider garage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kusayama with a male zipper side and a female zipper side, and associated second flange for attachment, as taught by Martinson because the male/female joining portions would present superior water resistance over the teeth of Kusayama and the second flange is disclosed with the male/female structure and it is therefore obvious to additionally this attaching structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
532
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
247
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Kusayama, in the instant combination, teaches the first flange ending at the slider garage and at the leg portion of the zipper teeth and is therefore interpreted to be “not exposed” in the area between the zipper sides and the slider garage. In the Kusayama-Martinson combination the zipper sides would be the male and female zipper sides.
Regarding Claim 3, within the instant combination of Kusayama-Martinson, Kusayama teaches the first flange on both sides of the zipper (see fig. 5) which would satisfy the limitations of this claim when the Kusayama zipper is replaced with the male and female zipper sides.
Regarding Claim 4, Kusayama does not explicitly teach the first flange attaching the zipper to another object.
Martinson teaches a flange (or flanges) which connect a zipper to another object (see 130, 135, see Col 4, Lns 60-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the Kusayama device on another object, as taught by Martinson, because zippers are intended to provide closure and access to garments or containers (such as luggage) and a disembodied zipper would have little to no marketable use when compared with a zipper attached to a garment or other container.
Regarding Claim 7, the instant combination does not teach the second flange being heat welded, however, within the instant combination Martinson teaches “RF Welding Flanges” (see Col 4, Lns 60-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the instant combination with heat welding because RF welding and heat welding are known equivalents in the garment art and selecting between known equivalents is well within the ordinary skill of those in the art.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusayama-Martinson as applied to claims 1-4 and 7 above, and further in view of Davis, U.S. Patent 9,944,028.
Regarding Claim 8, see rejection of Claim 1 above and further see Kusayama (in the instant combination) teaches:
a slider (2), sliding on the male zipper side and the female zipper side and the slider garage (fig. 2), wherein the slider garage includes a raised flange (see 12)
Kusayama does not teach:
The slider garage includes a male portion that extends from one side of the slider garage.
Davis clearly teaches a:
Slider garage (210, 211) includes a male portion (see 211, see below) that extends from one side of the slider garage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the instant combination with the teachings of Davis because that would reduce the likelihood of wear-and-tear on the edges/transitions of the interacting male-female portions and this would reduce the likelihood of damage to the point of inoperability.
PNG
media_image3.png
365
481
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, see Kusayama (in the instant combination) raised flange 12 and further note the disclosure of paragraph [0038] which discusses the flange sealing function which is interpreted to mee the limitations as claimed.
Regarding Claims 10-11¸ see 112 rejection above, and note that in the instant combination, Martinson teaches a male portion having angled edge providing a gradual transition into an interior and a corresponding female portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the teachings of Martinson on the male-female garage portions in the instant combination, because providing the claimed structures (which are well understood in the art) would reduce the likelihood of wear-and-tear on the edges/transitions of the interacting male-female portions and this would reduce the likelihood of damage to the point of inoperability.
PNG
media_image4.png
400
465
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677