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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/01/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
A copy of foreign patent document DE20210029 is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 1 “of the of the slot” should be - - of the slot - -.
Claim 10, line 2 “the throat” should be - - the hook throat - -.
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)(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, 2, 4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fildan et al. (US Publication No. 2008/0003921).
Regarding claim 1, Fildan et al. disclose a fastener comprising:
a receiver that releasably connects to a hook (see annotated Figs. 7 and 8);
the receiver comprising a slot for receiving a portion of the hook and an anchor bar for fitting with the hook, the anchor bar comprising a side of the slot (see annotated Fig. 7);
the slot comprising a first width that is farther away from anchor bar and a second width that is closer to the anchor bar, the second width being smaller than the first width (see annotated Fig. 7); and
the hook comprising:
a bend comprising hook throat and an ungated gape providing a passageway to the hook throat (see annotated Fig. 8); and
the hook throat configured to permit the anchor bar to rotate relative to the hook (see annotated Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 2, Fildan et al. disclose, wherein:
the hook comprises a broad, flat shank that is attached to the bend and that is configured to be affixed to a shoulder strap of a support garment (see annotated Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Fildan et al. disclose, wherein:
the anchor bar is a first cross bar (see annotated Fig. 7); and
the receiver comprises a second cross bar for slidably connecting to a strap (see annotated Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Fildan et al. disclose, wherein:
the receiver (30) is coupled to a first portion (44) of an article and the hook (10) is coupled to a second portion (46) of the article (see Figs. 9 and 10);
the receiver (30) and the hook (10) are configured to releasably connect the first portion (44) to the second portion (46) (see Figs. 9 and 10); and
the article is a support garment, a belt, a footwear article, or a backpack (brassiere (40), see Figs. 9 and 10; paragraph [0029] line 13-17).
PNG
media_image1.png
580
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Fildan et al. disclose a fastener comprising:
a receiver that releasably connects to a hook (see annotated Figs. 7 and 8);
the receiver comprising a slot for receiving a portion of the hook and an anchor bar for fitting with the hook, the anchor bar comprising a side of the slot (see annotated Figs. 7 and 8);
the slot comprising a first width that is farther away from anchor bar and a second width that is closer to the anchor bar, the second width being smaller than the first width (see annotated Fig. 7); and
the hook comprising a bend that, when connecting to the anchor bar, interference fits with the anchor bar, and when connected to the anchor bar, comprises a clearance fit or a transition fit (see annotated Figs. 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 9, Fildan et al. disclose, wherein the bend comprises:
a hook throat and a gape providing a passageway to the hook throat (see annotated Figs. 7 and 8); and
the gape comprises a gape width that is smaller than a width of the anchor bar (see annotated Figs. 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 10, Fildan et al. disclose, wherein the bend comprises a portion that generally opposes the gape on an opposite side of the throat and that is configured to elastically open the bend when the anchor bar is moved through the passageway (see annotated Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 11, Fildan et al. disclose, wherein the anchor bar comprises a straight, elongated body comprising, in a longitudinal orientation, an anchor-bar length and, in a transverse orientation, an anchor-bar width (see annotated Fig. 7).
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 3, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fildan et al. (US Publication No. 2008/0003921).
Regarding claim 3, Fildan et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the second width of the slot is about 1% to about 5% larger than a width associated with the hook. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the second width of the slot is about 1% to about 5% larger than a width associated with the hook, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It will be obvious to size the second width of the slot relative to the width of the hook in order to have an optimum width size, and to engage the hook into the slot.
Regarding claim 12, Fildan et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the anchor-bar length is about 4.5x to 5.5x larger than the anchor-bar width. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the anchor-bar length is about 4.5x to 5.5x larger than the anchor-bar width, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It will be obvious to size the anchor-bar length relative to the anchor-bar width in order to have an optimum length and width ratio, and to engage the anchor-bar to the hook.
Regarding claim 13, Fildan et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the anchor bar length is about 1% to about 5% larger than a hook width. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the anchor bar length is about 1% to about 5% larger than a hook width, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), and Gardner v. TEC 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It will be obvious to size the anchor bar length relative to the width of the hook in order to have an optimum anchor bar length, and to engage the anchor bar with the hook.
Claims 5, 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fildan et al. (US Publication No. 2008/0003921), in view of Kasei (EP 0,211,988 cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 5, Fildan et al. does not discloses a first standoff portion and a second standoff portion, the first standoff portion and the second standoff portion comprising sides of a channel, which is configured to receive at least a segment of the strap.
However, Kasei teaches a first standoff portion and a second standoff portion comprising sides of a channel (see annotated Fig. 3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the receiver from Fildan with a channel between two standoff portions as taught by Kasei in order to facilitate passing a strap along the channel and keep the strap between the standoff portions.
PNG
media_image2.png
260
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Fildan et al. does not discloses the receiver comprises one or more standoff portions configured to space the receiver apart from an underlying surface.
However, Kasei teaches the receiver comprises one or more standoff portions (see annotated Fig. 3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the receiver from Fildan with a channel between two standoff portions as taught by Kasei in order to facilitate passing the strap along the channel and keep the strap between the standoff portions.
Regarding claim 14, Fildan et al. discloses, wherein the receiver further comprises:
a first side and a second side, which is opposite the first side (see annotated Fig. 7);
a strap-adjustment bar extending from the first side to the second side and configured to slidably engage a textile portion (see annotated Fig. 7); and
Fildan et al. does not discloses a first standoff portion and a second standoff portion, the first standoff portion and the second standoff portion comprising sides of a channel, which is configured to receive at least a segment of the textile portion.
However, Kasei teaches a first standoff portion and a second standoff portion comprising sides of a channel (see annotated Fig. 3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the receiver from Fildan with a channel between two standoff portions as taught by Kasei in order to facilitate passing a strap along the channel and keep the strap between the standoff portions.
Conclusion
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