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 § 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "each cup" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-7, 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lambert, U.S. Patent 10,111,500.
Regarding Claim 1, Lambert teaches:
Complementary male and female components (20, 40) that reversibly engage with each
other magnetically and mechanically and exist in a locked position or an unlocked position (Figs. 3-4);
wherein the fastener is changed from locked position to unlocked position by applying a shearing force (see f1 in Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 2, Lambert teaches:
Wherein the moving the components so that the components move toward one
another is applying forces such that the magnetic engagement shears (see Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 3, Lambert teaches:
Wherein the moving the components so that the components move toward one
another is applying forces such that the mechanical features disengage (see Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 4, Lambert teaches:
Wherein the moving the components toward one another comprises applying a first
force to the male component in a longitudinal direction; and applying a second force to the female component in a longitudinal direction, wherein the first force is in an opposite direction from the second force such that the components move toward one another (see f1 in Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 5, Lambert teaches:
Wherein the male component comprises:
a mechanical feature (30, 50) adapted to reversibly attach to a complementary mechanical feature on the female component; and
a magnetic feature (34) that reversibly magnetically mates to a complementary magnetic feature (64) on the female component.
Regarding Claim 6, Lambert teaches:
Wherein in the locked position, the mechanical features of the male component and female component are located in a same plane (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7¸ Lambert teaches:
Two loops for attaching to fabric, wherein one loop is located on the male component and the other loop is located on the female component (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Lambert teaches:
Wherein in the locked position, two attachment ends for attaching to fabric are located in a same plane (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 16, Lambert teaches:
Wherein the shearing force moves a male bar (30) within female recess (50) and female sloped wall (Fig. 4) moves against male sloped wall (Fig. 3) until the components disengage.
Regarding Claim 17, Lambert teaches:
Wherein the shearing force is applied by moving the attachment end of the female component of the clasp assembly, and the attachment end of the male component of the clasp assembly, in a longitudinal direction such that they move toward one another (see Figs. 3-4).
Regarding Claim 19, Lambert teaches:
Wherein a first magnetic feature (34) is housed within the male clasp component and a second magnetic feature (64) is housed within the female clasp component.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bergamelli, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0259468.
Regarding Claim 1, Bergamelli teaches:
Complementary male and female components (10, 12) that reversibly engage with each
other magnetically and mechanically and exist in a locked position or an unlocked position (Figs. 1-3);
wherein the fastener is changed from locked position to unlocked position by applying a shearing force (Figs 6-9).
Regarding Claim 8, Bergamelli teaches:
Wherein the fastener is a bra front closure (see paragraph [0008]).
Regarding Claims 10-11¸ Bergamelli teaches a bra (Fig. 6) and a fastener according to Claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above) and a strap (see element 3).
Claim(s) 1 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chung, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0107547.
Regarding Claim 1, Chung teaches:
Complementary male and female components (1, 2) that reversibly engage with each
other magnetically and mechanically and exist in a locked position or an unlocked position (Figs. 1-2);
wherein the fastener is changed from locked position to unlocked position by applying a shearing force (Figs 3-6).
Regarding Claims 11-12, Chung teaches an article (paragraph [0004]) including a strap (element 4) with the fastener according to Claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above).
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) 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambert ‘500.
Examiner notes that the above method step limitations are considered obvious over the prior art in view of rejections of the structural limitations previously set forth. Although the prior art does not explicitly set forth the method steps as claimed when the method steps essentially set forth the provision and use of an apparatus, as intended by its structure, then such method steps are considered obvious when the structure of the apparatus has been demonstrated as obvious or anticipated by the prior art.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergamelli ‘468 as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Cuervo, U.S. Patent 12,402,679.
Regarding Claim 9, Bergamelli is silent with regard to the limitations of these claims.
Cuervo teaches a bra with a pocket under each cup (see 260).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Bergamelli with the teachings of Cuervo because that would a user in fastening and unfastening the bra clasp.
Regarding Claim 18¸ the limitations of this claim are considered functional language failing to limit the structure of the claimed invention. The prior art must only be capable of performing said functional recitations to be applicable and in the instant case the prior art of Bergameli-Cuervo is indeed capable. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Conclusion
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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677