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 .
This is a final Office action responsive to the reply filed on 04/06/2026.
Claims 1-6, 14, 15, 17-19 and 21 have been amended.
Claim 7 has been canceled.
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Metzger (US Patent No. 7,293,334).
Regarding claim 1, Metzger discloses a zipper apparatus, comprising:
a first portion having a first front wall and a first back wall (see annotated Fig. 4);
a second portion adjacent to the first portion, the second portion having a second front wall and a second back wall, each of the first and second front walls and the first and second back walls being angled relative to a central axis common to each the first and second portions (see annotated Figs. 3 and 4);
a divider extending upward from the first portion and forming a topmost surface of the zipper apparatus, the divider being configured to connect to a pull tab (28) (see Fig. 1 and annotated Fig. 4); and
a ramp extending between the topmost surface and a front point of the zipper apparatus (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Metzger discloses, wherein the first portion is connected to the second portion by a tape separator, and further comprising a track positioned between the first portion and the second portion, the track being split by the tape separator to form a first track branch and a second track branch (see annotated Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 3, Metzger discloses, wherein each of the first and second front walls and the first and second back walls are at least partially concave in shape (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Metzger discloses, wherein the front point extends from the first front wall, the second front wall, and the tape separator (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Metzger further discloses, comprising a back point extending from the first and second back walls (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Metzger further discloses, comprising:
a first opening formed on each of the first and second front walls and extending to the first track branch (see annotated Fig. 4);
a second opening formed on each of the first and second front walls and extending to the second track branch (see annotated Fig. 4); and
a third opening formed on the back point and extending to the track (see annotated Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 8, Metzger further discloses, comprising a first protrusion extending from the first front wall and a second protrusion extending from the second front wall (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Metzger further discloses, comprising a third protrusion extending from the first back wall and a fourth protrusion extending from the second back wall (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Metzger discloses, wherein the first and second openings are at least partially concave in shape (see annotated Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 14, Metzger further discloses, comprising:
a first back opening wall located on the first opening and angled away from the back point (see annotated Figs. 3 and 4); and
a second back opening wall located on the second opening and angled away from the back point (see annotated Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 15, Metzger discloses a zipper apparatus, comprising:
a first portion having a first front wall and a first back wall (see annotated Fig. 4);
a second portion adjacent to the first portion and having a second front wall and a second back wall (see annotated Fig. 4);
a first opening located on the first and second front walls and a second opening located on the first and second front walls (see annotated Fig. 3);
a back point extending from the first and second back walls (see annotated Fig. 4);
a third opening on the back point (see annotated Fig. 3);
a divider extending upward from the first portion and forming a topmost surface of the zipper apparatus, the divider being configured to connect to a pull tab (28) (see Fig. 1 and annotated Fig. 4); and
a ramp extending between the topmost surface and a front point of the zipper apparatus (see annotated Fig. 4),
the first front wall and the second front wall being configured to push material away from the first and second openings, and the back point, the first back wall, and the second back wall being configured to push material away from the third opening (see annotated Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 16, Metzger further discloses, comprising a tape separator connected to and between the first portion and the second portion and configured to separate a first tape and a second tape (see annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Metzger discloses, wherein the front point and the ramp are configured to push material away from the first and second openings (see annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Metzger discloses, wherein the back point is configured to push material away from the third opening (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, Metzger discloses, wherein the first opening is configured to transfer a tape between an external environment and a track, the second opening configured to transfer a tape between an external environment and the track, and the third opening configured to transfer a tape between an external environment and the track (see annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Metzger further discloses, comprising a first protrusion on the first front wall and a second protrusion on the second front wall configured to push material away from the first and second openings (see annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 21, Metzger further discloses, comprising a third protrusion on the first back wall and a fourth protrusion on the second back wall configured to push material away from the third opening (see annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
619
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger (US Patent No. 7,293,334).
Regarding claim 10, Metzger discloses the claimed invention except for an angle defining the angle of the front point is between 45 degrees and 70 degrees. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have an angle defining the angle of the front point is between 45 degrees and 70 degrees, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the relative dimension of a component. A change in relative dimension is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It will be obvious to modify the angle of the front point from Metzger in order to have an optimal angle without any interference with any material.
Regarding claim 11, Metzger discloses the claimed invention except for an angle defining the angle of the front point is between 45 degrees and 65 degrees. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have an angle defining the angle of the front point is between 45 degrees and 65 degrees, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the relative dimension of a component. A change in relative dimension is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It will be obvious to modify the angle of the front point from Metzger in order to have an optimal angle without any interference with any material.
Regarding claim 12, Metzger discloses the claimed invention except for an angle defining the angle of the front point is between 55 degrees and 65 degrees. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have an angle defining the angle of the front point is between 55 degrees and 65 degrees, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the relative dimension of a component. A change in relative dimension is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It will be obvious to modify the angle of the front point from Metzger in order to have an optimal angle without any interference with any material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see page 6, filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, the amended claims initially appeared to overcome the prior art, but upon further consideration, Metzger broadly discloses a divider extending upward from the first portion and forming a topmost surface of the zipper apparatus, the divider being configured to connect to a pull tab (28); and a ramp extending between the topmost surface and a front point of the zipper apparatus (see annotated Fig. 4). The examiner notices that the ramp is between the topmost surface and the front point.
Examiner’s Comment
In view of applicant’s amendments to the claims submitted in the reply filed on 04/06/2026, the claim objections indicated in the prior Office action have been withdrawn.
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 LOUIS A MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-5388. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 W. 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.
/LOUIS A. MERCADO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights