DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 14, lines 7 and 9, “8” should be –9-- and ”9” should be –8--.
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 1-12 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, lines 19-28, these limitations are indefinite. “the element rows” lacks antecedence. It is suggested that the limitation be changed to “the pair of element rows” to correct the problem. “the elements of a plurality of types” lacks antecedence and is indefinite. The term “types” is indefinite. It is not possible to determine what structures are associated with this term. What is the scope of the limitation “is classified into a neighboring class”? Is this a property of certain types of elements? “the elements in a neighborhood of the opener” lacks antecedence. “an n-th element” is indefinite. What is the element being referred to in this limitation? What does the term “n-th” mean or define? Also, “an (n+1)-th element” is indefinite. What is an “an (n+1) element”? What element is being referred to? It is not clear what “onwards from the opener” is defining. In what direction is the “onwards” term defining? Is it defining a direction? “the elements” lacks antecedence. “regarding an impact” is indefinite. What impact is being defined? This phrase seems misdescriptive. The impact between the one of the plurality of elements and the stop claw is applied by the stop claw and not applied to both the stop claw and one of the plurality of elements. Or, vice versa. What structure is being defined by this method step? Also, the limitation, in the penultimate line, “configured to strengthen the impact” is indefinite. The element remains the same during any impact and does nothing to change the impact force. The impact force is distinct from the make-up of the elements. These two paragraphs are narrative in form and fall to accurate describe the structure of the weak and strong elements of the plurality of elements. It is suggested to defined the structure of each of the weak and strong elements rather than what happens during a specific load bearing event.
Regarding claim 2, it is not definite what the number would be as defined by the limitation in the last line: “equal to or less than an integer closest to the half” What defines the term “closest”?
Claim 3 is rejected because it depends from rejected claim 1, from which it depends.
Regarding claim 4, line 7, “the elements” lacks antecedence. In line 8, “the corner portion of each of the weak elements” and in line 10, “the corner portion of each of the strong elements” lack antecedence.
Claims 5-6 are rejected because it depends from rejected claim 1, from which it depends.
Regarding claim 7, line 8, “the elements” lacks antecedence.
Regarding claim 8, line 8, “the elements” lacks antecedence.
Regarding claim 9, lines 3 and 4, “the tape” lacks antecedence.
Regarding claim 10, line 4, “the tapes” lack antecedence. It is suggested that the limitation be changed to “the pair of tapes” to correct the problem. In lines 6-7, “the tape” lacks antecedence. It is suggested that the limitation be changed to “one of the pair of tapes to form a removed portion on the one of the pair of tapes” to correct the problems. In the penultimate line, “the opener pieces” lack antecedence. It is suggested that the limitation be changed to “the pair of opener pieces” to correct the problem. In the last line, “the tape” lacks antecedence. It is suggested that the limitation be changed to “the one of the pair of tapes” to correct the problem.
In claim 11, line 3, “the opener pieces” lack antecedence. It is suggested that the limitation be changed to “the pair of opener pieces” to correct the problem.
In claim 12, line 3, “the opener pieces” lack antecedence. It is suggested that the limitation be changed to “the pair of opener pieces” to correct the problem.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-9 and 11-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The closest prior art is to Corner, US 2546088. Corner discloses a zipper with a pair of tapes (6) and a slider (9) for opening and closing the zipper. The slider has a locking pawl (14) for engaging and locking with the remote (upper) teeth (7), which are spaced apart to form a gap to receive the locking pawl (figure 12). The zipper also has neighboring (lower) teeth (8), which are spaced apart to form a gap to prevent the reception of the locking pawl between the adjacent neighboring teeth. The geometric design of the remote and neighboring teeth is identical. Whereas, once the claims define the structural differences between the remote and neighboring teeth, none of the prior art discloses a zipper having two sets of differently designed teeth for the remote and neighboring set of teeth that would change the force interaction between the slider and the teeth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK W LAVINDER whose telephone number is (571)272-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 9-4pm (EST).
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.
JACK W. LAVINDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/JACK W LAVINDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights