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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/8/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The prior art appears to read on the amended claim limitations as set forth below.
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, 7 and 12-15 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, wherein there is no break in the continuity of the male zipper side and the female zipper side to 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, wherein there is no break in the continuity of the male zipper side and the female zipper side to the slider garage (see below).
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. Furthermore, modifying Kusuyama from a toothed zipper to ball-and-socket style zipper would also increase water resistance.
PNG
media_image1.png
532
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
270
449
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.
Regarding Claim 12, the instant combination of Kusuyama-Martinson would satisfy the limitations of this claim under the modification in the rejection of Claim 1 because the first flange would no longer be exposed when the zipper teeth are replaced by the ball-and-socket zipper.
Regarding Claim 13, these limitations are satisfied by the modification under the rejection of Claim 1. See below, where the male zipper side, female zipper side and slider garage are immediately adjacent.
PNG
media_image3.png
451
542
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 14, see drawing selection above and note that the modification of the Kutsuyama prior art by Martinson as set forth in Claim 1 the first flange is not exposed between the male side, female side or slider garage.
Regarding Claim 15, see rejection of Claim 1 which is amended by the same claim language as this claim and is therefore considered rejected as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
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_image4.png
365
481
media_image4.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_image5.png
400
465
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
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.
/MATTHEW J SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights