DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first office action on the merits. Claims 1 and 3-16, as filed are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Election was made in the reply filed on 23 April 2026.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN212650520) in view of Hamatani (US 5,129,127).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses an apparatus comprising:
a fastener tape (11, 12);
a fastener element (33, 34) arranged on a side edge portion of the fastener tape; and
a covering member (21, 22) made of soft material (Fig. 1 shows material being bent) and covering the fastener tape (Fig. 1 as shown), the covering member comprising a sealing portion (25,26) positioned on an opposite side of the fastener element with respect to the fastener tape in a thickness direction of the fastener tape, and wherein the covering member is configured as a supporting substrate that supports the fastener tape (Fig. 1 as shown).
Xu fails to disclose the covering member includes a flexible core sheet extending in a longitudinal direction of the fastener stringer, and the core sheet is embedded in the soft material such that one surface of the core sheet is at least partially exposed or both surfaces of the core sheet are not exposed.
Hamatani teaches wherein core sheets (16) are used in fastener materials.
From this teaching of Hamatani, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to embed a core sheet of Hamatani into the layers 21, 22 of Xu to enhance the tensile strength of the covering member and to prevent tearing.
Regarding claim 3, the combination device of Xu and Hamatani further discloses wherein one end of the core sheet in a width direction of the fastener stringer is embedded in the sealing portion (Figs. 1 and 2 of Hamatani show wherein the core sheet extends to a sealing portion).
Regarding claim 4, the combination device of Xu and Hamatani further discloses wherein one end of the core sheet in a width direction of the fastener stringer is positioned away from a sealing face of the sealing portion within an extent above the fastener element, and a soft portion is formed between the one end of the core sheet and the sealing face in the width direction of the covering member (Figs. 1 and 2 of Hamatani show wherein the core sheet is spaced from an end portion to form a soft portion).
Regarding claim 5, the combination device of Xu and Hamatani discloses the invention but fails to disclose wherein a distance between the one end of the core sheet and the sealing face in the width direction of the covering member is 1 cm or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the distance between the sealing face and core sheet to be 1cm or less since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, the combination device of Xu and Hamatani further discloses wherein the core sheet is a woven sheet, a knitted sheet (Column 2, lines 33-35 of Hamatani), a mixed sheet of woven and knitted structures, a paper sheet, a nonwoven fabric or a metal foil.
Regarding claim 7, Xu further discloses wherein the sealing portion is displaceable away from and closer to the fastener tape (Fig. 1 as shown wherein abutting the ends causes displacement away from the tape and movement closer to the tape when the ends are pulled apart to prevent the abutting).
Regarding claim 8, Xu further discloses wherein the covering member is wider than the fastener tape (Fig. 1 as shown).
Regarding claim 10, Xu further discloses fastener stringer according to claim 1, wherein the sealing portion is shaped to include a slanting portion that is obliquely angled or a wall that stands upright (Fig. 1 as shown).
Regarding claim 11, Xu further discloses the fastener element is a coiled element (33, 34, Fig. 1 as shown) sewn to the fastener tape by an attachment thread (41).
Regarding claim 12, Xu further discloses wherein the fastener tape has a main surface at least partially covered by the covering member, and stitches of the attachment thread are covered by the covering member on the main surface (Fig. 1 as shown).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Xu and Hamatani as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Daichi Rubber (JP 55000485).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Xu and Hamatani disclose the invention except for wherein the covering member includes an attachment portion, the attachment portion being positioned farther from the sealing portion than the fastener tape in a width direction of the fastener stringer and having an exposed surface exposed as not being covered by the fastener tape.
Daichi Rubber teaches an attachment portion (8) extending from water proof pieces (4, 5) in a width direction farther than fastener tape (2).
From this teaching of Daichi Rubber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to extend the layers 21, 22 of Xu and Hamatani beyond the fastener tape to enhance the water tightness of the interface with the garment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the covering members are too thin to allow an embedded core sheet and that bending is hindered diminishing waterproofness. It is unclear what evidence applicant is basing the thinness upon. The films used in Xu are disclosed as TPU (Paragraph 33). The current application also uses a matching material (polyurethane, Paragraph 32 of the current Specification). While using the same material films, it is unclear how applicant has come to the conclusion that it is only the prior art films that are too thin. Furthermore, the spacing provided from the edge of the film is considered to be sufficient to provide the desired flexibility. Applicant has further argued the manner in which the elements are sewn. However, there is no claim language for sewing to the covering member currently.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kayahara (US 2021/0007447) for a coated tape, Terada et al. (US 2025/0089858) and Norvell (US 5,386,616) for a tape with an embedded core.
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