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 Objections
Claims 2-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-10, lines 1, “with a fixed zipper slider” should be “with the fixed zipper slider”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2025219409 to Abus.
Regarding claim 1, Abus discloses:
An electronic lock (fig 1a) with a fixed zipper slider (fig 2a), comprising a lower clamping plate (137), a locking assembly (27), and a connecting assembly (139, 141, 142, 146), wherein a bottom of the locking assembly corresponding to the lower clamping plate is formed with an upper clamping plate (135, fig 2b), the upper clamping plate is located above the lower clamping plate (figs 2a/b), the upper clamping plate has a clamping position (fig 2a) for clamping a zipper (19) relative to the lower clamping plate, and an unclamping position (fig 11) for releasing the zipper relative to the lower clamping plate, the upper clamping plate and the lower clamping plate are connected through the connecting assembly so that the upper clamping plate is locked at the clamping position relative to the lower clamping plate (fig 11), the locking assembly has a rotatable encircling member (41), a locking area (103) for locking the zipper slider is formed between the lower clamping plate and the encircling member (fig 11), and by rotating the encircling member, the zipper slider is locked in the locking area or the locking area is opened (rotation of 41 locks/unlocks the zipper from 103).
Regarding claim 2, Abus discloses:
The electronic lock with a fixed zipper slider according to claim 1, wherein the lower clamping plate comprises a main plate (150) and a pressing toothed rack (95), the pressing toothed rack is arranged on a pressing surface (top surface) of the main plate (figs 4a-c).
Regarding claim 3, Abus discloses:
The electronic lock with a fixed zipper slider according to claim 2, wherein two pressing toothed racks (both 95) are symmetrically arranged on both sides of the main plat (right and left side as seen in fig 4a).
Regarding claim 10, Abus discloses:
The electronic lock with a fixed zipper slider according to claim 1, wherein the lower clamping plate is extended outward to form a bottom support plate (fig 2b, bottom position of 137)) for accommodating the zipper slider (via providing support for 103).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2025219409 to Abus.
Regarding claim 4, Abus discloses:
The electronic lock with a fixed zipper slider according to claim 1, wherein the connecting assembly comprises a threaded hole (144) and a hand screw (screw that goes in 144 seen in fig 4a), the threaded hole is arranged on the lower clamping plate, the upper clamping plate has a locking hole (144), the hand screw passes through the locking hole and connects with the threaded hole, and the upper clamping plate is locked at the clamping position relative to the lower clamping plate (screw enters 144 via 146).
Abus does not explicitly disclose: the threaded hole is arranged on the upper clamping plate, the lower clamping plate has a locking hole. Abus teaches the locking hole on the upper clamping plate and the threaded hole on the lower clamping plate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the locking hole and threaded hole on the opposite clamping plate at least because doing so requires only the rearrangement of parts and could be accomplished without undue experimentation and would yield the same result, providing a locking hole and threaded hole. See MPEP 2144, subsection VI.C.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2025219409 to Abus in view of CN 108457534 to Liu.
Regarding claim 5, Abus discloses:
The electronic lock with a fixed zipper slider according to claim 1, wherein the locking assembly further comprises a casing (37), , a drive mechanism (93), and a lock tongue (17), a bottom of the casing is formed with the upper clamping plate (fig 2a), an output end (fig 4a) of the drive mechanism is matched with the lock tongue, the lock tongue is slidably arranged in the casing and has a locking position (fig 4a) that engages with the encircling member (via 93) and an unlocking position (fig 4b) that disengages from the encircling member relative to the casing (43 no longer engages the casing to hold the zipper in place), and the lock tongue is switched between the locking position and the unlocking position under the driving of the drive mechanism (93 moves 17).
Abus does not explicitly disclose: an electronic subassembly; the electronic subassembly is built into the casing, the drive mechanism is electrically connected to the electronic subassembly. However, Liu teaches that it is well known in the art for an electronic assembly (40) to be built in the casing (11), the drive mechanism (20) is electrically connected to the electronic subassembly (via 42). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Liu into Abus at least because doing so would provide a remote and electronic method of controlling the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yahya Sidky whose telephone number is (571)272-6237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-4:30.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/Y.S./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675