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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments are primarily directed to the purported differences between the claimed “pull tab insertion path” and the “pull tab insertion path” set forth in the prior art. Although the Examiner acknowledges that there may be differences between the prior art and the claimed device, these differences are not explicit in the claims. The “path” is not a term-of-art and can be interpreted broadly. Structural requirements directed toward the “path” would receive favorable consideration, but the prior art is still interpreted to read on the pending claims. If Applicant considers the “path” a definite structure with support in the specification then Examiner advises amending the claims to set forth this structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamagishi, U.S. patent Application Publication 2017/0156452.
Regarding Claim 1, Yamagishi teaches:
A slider body (20) in which an upper blade (21) and a lower blade (22) are connected to
each other, a pull tab (11, 15a, b), and a string attachment structure (11, 15a, b), wherein
the slider body includes a pull tab attachment portion (40) formed on the upper blade (21), the pull tab attachment portion (40) includes a pair of left and right first members (41L, 41R) protruding from an upper surface of the upper blade and a second member (42) configured to connect the pair of left and right first members (41L and 41R), and a pull tab insertion path (28) is provided between the second member (42) and the upper blade (21),
at least a part of the pull tab is provided with a string-like member (12c), and
the string-like member of the pull tab and the string attachment structure are disposed in the pull tab insertion path (see Figs. 10-11).
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) 2-6 and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bowman, U.S. Patent 2,217,042.
Regarding Claim 2, Yamagishi teaches an embodiment wherein the string folded portion has a folded portion with two string portions extending from the folded portion (see Fig. 1, element 12).
However, the embodiment relied upon above does not teach the folded portion and two string portions.
Bowman teaches a string fastening device comprising a string attachment structure (13) which engages with a string portion to create a string folded portion and creates a pair of string members (see element 14, see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Yamagishi with a string attachment structure similar to that taught by Bowman because that would permit easy changing of the string member (due to wear-and-tear or damage) and the wedging aspect of the string fastening device could reversibly nest with the slider body.
Regarding Claim 3, in the Yamagishi-Bowman combination, Bowman teaches:
The string attachment structure (13) includes a right recessed groove (22) and a left recessed groove (23) and the pair of string members extend from the string folded portion that passes between the pair of left and right recessed grooves (Fig. 1).
In the instant combination the string attachment structure would wedge between the left and right first members.
Regarding Claim 4, in the Yamagishi-Bowman combination, Bowman teaches:
The string attachment structure (13) includes a right internal passage (see below) defined by a right wall (18) which is planar and a central separation wall (see below), and a left internal passage (see below) defined by a left wall (19) and the central separation wall, and the string-like member passes through the left and right internal passages (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
298
359
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5¸ the Yamagishi-Bowman combination teaches:
The string attachment structure (13) includes a front raised portion (see Central Separation Wall) and a rear raised portion (see Central Separation Wall) on an upper surface thereof, and the second member is disposed between the front raised portion and the rear raised portion (see Bowman, how element 13 interacts with element 11 and note that in the combination the string attachment structure would satisfy these limitations).
Regarding Claim 6, in the instant combination, Yamagishi teaches:
A front side edge (see below) and a rear side edge (see below) of the second member (Fig. 4, element 32) of the pull tab attachment portion of the slider body have a curvilinear shape.
Yamagishi does not teach:
Edge portions of the front raised portion and the rear raised portion of the string attachment structure have a curved surface shape corresponding to the curvilinear shape of the second member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the front and rear raised edge portions with curved surface shapes because that would reduce the likelihood of damaging the string member.
PNG
media_image2.png
322
473
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, the instant combination is silent with regard to the front surface of the string attachment structure having an inclined surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the Yamagishi-Bowman combination with an inclined front surface because that would aid in the initial wedging action of the string attachment structure. Furthermore, a change in shape is generally considered obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art and applicant has not provided any unforeseen result stemming from the use of the claimed structure nor provided any specific problem solved by the claimed structure, In re Dailey.
Regarding Claim 9, in the instant combination, Bowman teaches:
The string attachment structure (13) is provided with a rear recess (see below) penetrating in a left-right direction on a rear surface (see below, see Fig. 2, note that the recess clearly wraps around to the rear) thereof.
PNG
media_image3.png
319
573
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, in an alternate interpretation, Bowman, in the instant combination teaches:
The string attachment structure includes an offset recess (see below), and a string folded portion (see below) of the string-like member is disposed in a string storage space (see below) formed by the offset recess.
PNG
media_image4.png
307
489
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, the instant combination is silent regarding the string attachment structure and slider body being integral.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the string attachment structure and the slider body being integral because that would simplify the construction and assembly which would reduce manufacturing costs and the likelihood of failure. Furthermore, making components integral is generally considered obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art and applicant has not provided any unforeseen result stemming from the use of the claimed structure nor provided any specific problem solved by the claimed structure, In re Larson.
Regarding Claims 12-13, the prior art is silent regarding the specific manufacturing steps. However, Examiner notes that these claims are considered to be product-by-process claims due to the limitations “step of disposing“, “step of moving” and “step of fixing”. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, the patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process", In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966. See MPEP 2113.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin, U.S. Patent 7,257,869.
Yamagishi is silent regarding the limitations of this claim.
Lin teaches:
A string attachment structure includes a cover member (9) on an upper surface thereof, and the second member (7) of the pull tab attachment portion is accommodated between the cover member (9) and a central body portion (53) of the string attachment structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Yamagishi with a cover as taught by Lin because that would reduce the likelihood of detritus ingress into the slider which can reduce performance of the slider.
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 MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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.
/MATTHEW J SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights