DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a FINAL office action on the merits. Claims 1 and 6-11, as filed are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5-11 have been improperly carried over from the previous presentation and coincide with claims 4-10 respectively of the previous submission received 10 July 2024. The claims as presented have been examined. However, any further amendment should include cancellation of claims 6-11 with the language included in new claims 12 and greater to avoid confusion and the improper use of claim status identifiers.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-11 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 describes wherein the rear surface of the first and second protuberances are perpendicular. However, the original Specification makes no explicit indication of its angularity to any reference plane or line. For purpose of this examination, the claim is read to mean substantially perpendicular to the chain link body.
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 6-11 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).
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), 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 perpendicular planar rear surface.
Wittenberg teaches protuberances (d) having a side profile that include a beveled planar front surface, top surface and perpendicular 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 perpendicular pull strength between adjacent elements.
Regarding claim 6, Blair further discloses wherein the engagement hub side surfaces are parallel to the longitudinal centerline (Fig. 2 as shown).
Regarding claim 7, 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 (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 8, 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 9, 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 10, 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 11, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments and amendments regarding the profile of the protuberances have been addressed by the inclusion of the teaching Wittenberg teaching reference above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Blair (US 1,775,419) shows fastener elements with paired protuberances protruding from a same side.
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 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
Prosecution Insights