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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takani et al. (U.S. 2009/0049659).
As for Claim 1, Takani discloses a slider for a concealed slide fastener, comprising:
a lower blade (5);
a pair of left and right rails (8) erected alongside edges of the lower blade in a left-right
direction;
left and right flanges (9) extending in a direction in which the left and right flanges approach each other from upper ends of the pair of left and right rails;
a guide column (6) erected on the lower blade; and
an attachment column (7) provided above the guide column, wherein a front end portion of each of the flanges (front end of 9) is located forward with respect to a front end portion of each of the rails (18), and a start point of a flange inner-front curved portion is located behind the front end portion of each of the rails (see Annotated Fig.).
Re: Claim 4. The slider for the concealed slide fastener according to claim 1, wherein a radius of curvature of the flange inner-front curved portion is larger than a radius of curvature of a flange outer front curved portion (see Annotated Fig.).
Re: Claim 5. The slider for the concealed slide fastener according to claim 1, wherein a shape of the lower blade on a frontward opening side is a substantially elliptical shape elongated in a sliding direction of the slider (see Figs. 1-2 disclosing the lower blade 5 being substantially elliptical in shape), a major axis of the substantially elliptical shape is oriented in a front-rear direction of the slider (see Fig. 2), and a minor axis thereof is oriented in the left-right direction of the slider (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
646
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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) 2-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takani et al. (U.S. 2009/0049659).
Takani discloses the slider 11 having an entire width and flange inner-front curved portion having a width (see Annotated Fig.) but fails to explicitly recite wherein regarding dimensions W1 and W0 defined below, the ratio of W1/W0 is in a range of 25% to 35%,
W0: half the length of the entire width of the slider in the left-right direction,
W1: the width of the flange inner-front curved portion in the left-right direction.
Takani discloses a radius of curvature of the flange inner-front curved portion (see Annotated Fig.), but fails to explicitly recite wherein a radius of curvature of the flange inner-front curved portion is in a range of 1.2 mm to 2.0 mm.
Takani discloses a length of the lower blade (see Fig. 2, lower blade 5), but fails to explicitly recite wherein a length D1 in a front-rear direction of the lower blade existing forward with respect to the front end portion of each of the rails is larger than 30% of a length DO in the front-rear direction of the entire slider.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the limitations disclosed in claims 2, 3, and 6 by Applicant, 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. Refer to MPEP § 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Keyaki et al. (U.S. 2004/0055119) discloses an analogous slider pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M UPCHURCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7957. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-3PM EST M-F.
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.
/DAVID M UPCHURCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights