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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-9, 11, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of CN106617520 (A) ('520), as understood from the provided translation of the abstract.
With respect to claim 1, Lee discloses a waterproof fastener tape (abstr.), comprising a waterproof diaphragm comprising a transparent layer and a colored layer laminated below the transparent layer – waterproof film – element 20 - and a print layer – element 22 - (0013, 0015, 0016, 0035, 0038, Fig. 3), an adhesive layer laminated below the colored layer (0039), and a fastener tape body disposed below the colored layer of the waterproof diaphragm through the adhesive layer (0039). The transparent layer and the colored layer have a boundary therebetween – the print layer is formed on the lower surface of element 20 (0038). Lee is silent with respect to the boundary being not a complete dividing line.
'520 discloses a fastener tape wherein the colored layer – the color TPU layer - is provided on the transparent layer - a transparent protective layer - when the transparent layer is in a semi-dry state (abstr.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the waterproof fastener tape of Lee, wherein the colored layer is provided on the transparent layer when the transparent layer is in a semi-dry state as such method is known in the art of methods of making fastener tapes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a fastener tape formed so that the transparent layer is in a semi-dry state when the print layer is provided on it, that the boundary between the layers would not be a complete dividing line, as the product would be formed by a substantially identical method as the method disclosed in the instant specification, the method in the instant specification producing a boundary that is not a complete dividing line.
Regarding claim 3, Lee and '520 teach the tape of claim 1. Lee discloses the waterproof diaphragm is disposed to produce a coloring gradation at a boundary between the transparent layer and the colored layer – the color of a zipper’s surface is exposed through a transparent portion of the colored layer and the colors are visible through the transparent layer of polyurethane material (0034, 0035).
Furthermore, since the transparent layer is in a semi-dry state when the print layer is provided on it as disclosed in '520, and in the instant specification, a coloring gradation is produced at the boundary between the transparent layer and the colored layer.
With respect to claims 6-8, Lee and '520 teach the tape of claim 1. Lee does not specify a thickness of the colored layer, however, since the colored layer is a print layer formed by ink that is spread on the transparent layer (0038), the colored layer having a specific function with respect to the transparent layer and the zipper (0034, 0035), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the colored layer of the tape of Lee.
Regarding claim 9, Lee and '520 teach the tape of claim 1. Lee does not specify a thickness of the transparent layer with respect to a thickness of the fastener tape, however, since the transparent layer provides the waterproofing function for the tape (0034), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the ratio of the thicknesses of the transparent layer and the waterproof fastener tape in order for the transparent layer to maintain its effectiveness as a waterproofing layer.
As to claim 11, Lee and '520 teach the tape of claim 1; Lee is silent with respect to a thickness of the adhesive layer with respect to a thickness of the waterproof fastener tape as recited in the claim, however, since the adhesive secures the waterproof diaphragm to the tape body (0039), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thickness of the adhesive layer to ensure that the waterproof diaphragm is securely attached to the tape body.
With respect to claim 13, Lee and '520 teach the tape of claim 1, but are silent specifically with respect to a thickness of the adhesive layer being 2 or more times and 5 or less times a thickness of the waterproof diaphragm, however, since the adhesive layer secures the diaphragm to the tape body (0039), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thickness of the adhesive layer so that the diaphragm is secured properly to the tape body.
As to claim 15, Lee and '520 teach the tape of claim 1. Lee teaches the fastener tape body is provided with elements – elements 12 (0033), and the elements and the waterproof diaphragm are disposed on opposite sides of the fastener tape body (0034, Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of '520, and further in view of Numata et al. (US 10,426,233 B2) (“Numata”) and Konaka et al. (US 2015/0143672 A1) (“Konaka”).
With respect to claim 2, Lee and '520 teach the tape of claim 1, but are silent regarding each of the waterproof diaphragm and the adhesive layer being a water-based material.
Numata discloses a waterproof fastener tape (abstr.), wherein a transparent layer is formed of a water-based material (col. 5, lines 24-25). Konaka discloses a waterproof fastener tape wherein a water-based adhesive is used (0009, 0019). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a water-based transparent layer and a water-based adhesive layer in the tape of Lee as such materials are known in the art of waterproof fasteners. Lee is silent with respect to the colored layer being water-based – the ink layer – but since both the transparent layer and adhesive layer would be water-based, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a water-based colored layer in the diaphragm of Lee.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of '520, and further in view of Chang (US 2023/0067517 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Lee and '520 teach the tape of claim 1, but are silent with respect to a thickness of the waterproof diaphragm as recited in the claim. Chang discloses a waterproof clothing (abstr.), wherein a thickness of the waterproof diaphragm is from 5 µm to 100 µm (0031, 0032), and a thickness of the waterproof fabric corresponding to the tape of the instant invention is from 250 µm to 400 µm (0091), thus, the ratio of the thickness of the diaphragm and the tape is within the recited range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the thickness of the diaphragm of Lee and '520 as recited in Chang, as such thicknesses are known in waterproof clothing elements; changes in size are within the purview of a person skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, Lee and '520 teach the tape of claim 1, but are silent with respect to a thickness of the waterproof diaphragm as recited in the claim. Chang discloses a waterproof clothing (abstr.), wherein a thickness of the waterproof diaphragm is from 5 µm to 100 µm (0031, 0032). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 5; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the thickness of the waterproof diaphragm of Lee and '520 as recited in Chang, as such thicknesses are known in waterproof clothing elements; changes in size are within the purview of a person skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of '520, and further in view of Numata et al. (US 10,426,233 B2) (“Numata”).
With respect to claim 10, Lee and '520 teach the tape of claim 1, but are silent regarding a thickness of the transparent layer as recited in the claim. Numata discloses a waterproof fastener tape, wherein a thickness of the transparent layer is at most 50 µm (abstr., col. 2, lines 41-52). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 10; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the transparent layer of Lee and '520 having a thickness as disclosed in Numata, as that thickness is known in the art of waterproof tapes.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of '520, and further in view of Lao et al. (US 2023/0193085 A1) (“Lao”).
With respect to claim 12, Lee and '520 teach the tape of claim 1, but are silent with respect to a thickness of the adhesive layer as recited in the claim. Lao discloses a waterproof tape (abstr.), wherein an adhesive layer has a thickness of from 5 mil to 10 mil (0023). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 12; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the adhesive layer of Lee and '520 as recited in Lao, as the thickness disclosed in Lao is known in the art of waterproof tapes.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of '520, and further in view of Kameyama et al. (US 2017/0332744 A1) (“Kameyama”) and Numata et al. (US 10,426, 233 B2) (“Numata”).
With respect to claim 14, Lee and '520 teach the tape of claim 1, but are silent with respect to the thickness of the tape as recited in the claim. Kameyama teaches a waterproof fastener (abstr.) and discloses that a thickness of fastener tape is from 300 to 700 µm (0089). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 14; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Numata discloses a waterproof fastener tape (abstr.), and discloses that the thickness of the waterproof fastener tape impacts sliding resistance of a fastener slider, reduction of abrasion of the waterproof layer due to friction, and the total weight of the fastener (col. 7, lines 58-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the fastener tape of Lee and '520 in order to obtain the desired tape characteristics.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of CN106617520 (A) ('520), as understood from the provided translation of the abstract.
With respect to claim 16, Lee discloses a waterproof fastener tape (abstr.), comprising a waterproof diaphragm comprising a transparent layer and a colored layer laminated below the transparent layer – waterproof film – element 20 - and a print layer – element 22 - (0013, 0015, 0016, 0035, 0038, Fig. 3), an adhesive layer laminated below the colored layer (0039), and a fastener tape body disposed below the colored layer of the waterproof diaphragm through the adhesive layer (0039). Lee discloses a method of making the tape (0038-0073), the method providing the colored layer on the transparent layer (0038), but Lee is silent with respect to providing the colored layer on the transparent layer when the transparent layer is in a semi-dry state.
'520 discloses a method of making a fastener tape wherein the colored layer – the color TPU layer - is provided on the transparent layer - a transparent protective layer - when the transparent layer is in a semi-dry state (abstr.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the waterproof fastener tape of Lee, wherein the colored layer is provided on the transparent layer when the transparent layer is in a semi-dry state as such method is known in the art of methods of making fastener tapes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a fastener tape formed so that the transparent layer is in a semi-dry state when the print layer is provided on it, that the boundary between the layers would not be a complete dividing line, as the product would be formed by a substantially identical method as the method disclosed in the instant specification, the method in the instant specification producing a boundary that is not a complete dividing line.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 18, 2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant argued that Lee does not describe a color gradation between the waterproof layer and the print layer (p. 6 of the Remarks). The Examiner notes the amended claim 3 recites “a coloring gradation at the boundary between the transparent layer and the colored layer.” In the present Office Action, the reference of '520 was combined with Lee to reject claims 1 and 3, as discussed above.
Regarding the rejection of claim 16, wherein the Examiner relied on the abstract of '520, the Applicant argued that the abstract describes that the transparent TPU layer is fused with the polyester fiber base material, and since the TPU layer and the base material are fused, there is no boundary between the two. The Examiner notes, it is her opinion, that even if the transparent TPU layer and the polyester fiber base material are fused, there is a boundary between them. However, in the previous Office Action rejection and in the present Office Action rejection, the Examiner relied on the color TPU layer which is in a semi-dry state and the transparent protective layer which is in a semi-dry state, as disclosed in the abstract of '520.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights