DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09 September 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 and 12-19 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.
Claim 1 now describes wherein the narrow engagement hub providing the bending without impingement interference. However, the originally filed disclosure describes having protuberances on both sides of each link and parallel hub side surfaces being parallel allows bending. No correlation was provided between a narrow engagement hub and bending.
Claim 18 describes wherein the engagement hub is narrower than the keyway but no original support can be found for this limitation in the original disclosure.
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.
Claim 17 is 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. It is unclear how position is related to the width dimension of the protuberances.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair (US 1,732,787) in view of Wittenberg (US 1,639,392) and Hiromi et al. (US 2023/0068548).
Regarding claim 1, Blair discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising: a chain link body (1), the chain link body including a first side surface (Fig. 4 as shown), a second side surface (Fig. 5 as shown) positioned opposite to the first side surface, and a contoured perimeter surface (Fig. 4 shows a surrounding perimeter surface), the chain link body having a first clamp arm and a second clamp arm (6), the clamp arms deformable (lines 51-54) to engage a zipper tape (8) for positioning a plurality of the zipper chain links in a longitudinal spaced apart arrangement, the chain link body including an engagement hub (separated by 13 from the jaws) a pair of engagement hub side surfaces are parallel to the longitudinal centerline (Fig. 2 as shown), a contoured perimeter surface connecting the engagement hub side surfaces to the first and second clamp arms (contours provided by 13, Fig. 4 as shown), the first side surface of the engagement hub having a first protuberance (9), and a first concavity (12), the second side surface of the engagement hub including a second protuberance (11) and a second concavity (10), the protuberances positioned to interdigitate with concavities of adjacently positioned zipper chain links (Fig. 5 as shown), the first protuberance and the first concavity are positioned on opposite sides of a longitudinal centerline and in alignment with a transverse alignment line, the second protuberance and the second concavity are positioned on opposite sides of the longitudinal centerline and in alignment with a transverse alignment line, for balancing the load applied to the zipper chain link (Figs. 2-5 as shown), providing both a female to male connection and a male to female type connection on each side of each zipper chain link (Figs. 2-5 as shown).
Blair fails to disclose the first and second protuberance each having a side profile that includes a beveled planar front surface, a planar top surface and a planar rear surface.
Wittenberg teaches protuberances (d) having a side profile that include a beveled planar front surface, top surface and rear surface (Fig. 7 as shown).
From this teaching of Wittenberg, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the claimed protuberance profiles of Wittenberg in place of the rounded shapes found in Blair. The shape allows for ease of engagement while still maximizing pull strength between adjacent elements.
Blair further fails to disclose wherein the engagement hub is narrower in width than the remainder of the chain link body, providing the bending of a zipper chain assembly without impingement interference.
Hiromi et al. teaches wherein an engagement hub (40) is narrower in width than the remainder (31, 32) of the chain link body (Fig. 4 as shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to minimize the cost to produce a chain link by reducing engagement hub dimensions while still maintaining the structures required for the links to be secured to a zipper tape.
Regarding claim 12, Blair further discloses wherein the first clamp arm and the second clamp arm each include a clamp jaw surface (Fig. 2 as shown), the clamp jaw surfaces positioned in a diverging arrangement before either zipper chain link is secured to the zipper tape to facilitate insertion of the zipper tape (the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight) and wherein the clamp jaw surfaces are positioned parallel when attached to the zipper tape (Fig. 2 as shown).
Regarding claim 13, Blair further discloses wherein the first clamp arm and the second clamp arm each include a keyway (Fig. 4 as annotated below) for securing the zipper chain link to a key on the zipper tape.
PNG
media_image1.png
320
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Blair as annotated and reproduced
Regarding claim 14, Blair further discloses wherein the zipper chain link includes a datum surface (Fig. 4 as annotated above) for establishing the position of the zipper chain link with respect to a zipper tape edge.
Regarding claim 15, Blair further discloses wherein a plurality of the zipper chain links are secured to the zipper tape edge (Fig. 1 as shown), the zipper tape edge in contact with the datum surface (Fig. 2 as shown) and wherein the first clamp arm and the second clamp arm each include a clamp jaw surface (Fig. 4 as annotated above), the clamp jaw surfaces positioned in a diverging arrangement before either zipper chain link is secured to the zipper tape (the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight) and wherein the clamp jaw surfaces are positioned parallel when attached to the zipper tape (Fig. 2 as shown).
Regarding claim 16, Blair further discloses wherein a plurality of the zipper chain links are secured to the zipper tape key (Fig. 1 as shown), and wherein the first clamp arm and the second clamp arm and their respective keyways secure each of the zipper chain links to the zipper tape key (Figs. 1 and 2 as shown).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Blair further discloses wherein the first protuberance and the second protuberance are positioned on the engagement hub to be narrower in width than the keyway (the protuberances as shown in Figs. 2-8 are narrower than the keyway as shown).
Regarding claim 18, the combination device of Blair, Wittenberg and Hiromi et al. disclose the invention except for wherein the engagement hub is narrower in width than the keyway. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further minimize the cost to produce a chain link by reducing engagement hub dimensions further in relation to the securement features such that the keyway is greater in width than the hub. This relative dimensional relationship was previously introduced by Hiromi et al. and can be enhanced in the desired manner to minimize material usage.
Regarding claim 19, Hiromi et al. further teaches wherein the zipper chain links are constructed from metal (See Title).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use metal for its high strength and wear resistance since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states the prior art references require a rectangular body. However, Examiner has not been able to find specific reference within the disclosures of Blair and Wittenberg that requires the rectangular shape and would prevent modification as demonstrated above. Applicant’s remarks about the manufacture of the links do not appear to be pertinent to allowability of the claims. It is clear that Hiromi et al. predates the instant invention and demonstrates the modifications were able to be made prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
/MICHAEL S LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3677
