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 02/26/2026.
Claims 1 and 5 have been amended.
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 24 “the relative positions” should be - - relative positions - -.
Claim 5, line 3 “a tape width direction” should be - - the tape width direction - -.
Claim 7, line 5 “a tape width direction” should be - - the tape width direction - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amendment filed on 02/26/2026 introduces new matter that is not supported in the originally filed disclosure. The claimed subject matter pertaining to “resulting from the relative positions of the sewn portion” constitutes new matter since the originally filed disclosure fails to support this claimed subject matter.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Defazio et al. (US Patent No. 3,449,764).
Regarding claim 1, Defazio et al. discloses a slide fastener-attached product comprising:
a pair of fastener stringers, each including a fastener tape and a plurality of fastener elements arranged on the fastener tape at equal intervals in a tape length direction (see annotated Fig. 1); and
a fastener-receiving member including a pair of stringer attachment edges to which the fastener stringers are attached respectively and that are positioned to face each other (see annotated Fig. 1),
wherein each of the fastener stringers is attached to a corresponding one of the stringer attachment edges with a sewn portion formed of a sewing thread (see annotated Fig. 1),
wherein each of the stringer attachment edges includes a double-layer portion bent in a U-shape in a sectional view taken along a plane orthogonal to the tape length direction (see annotated Fig. 1),
wherein the double-layer portion includes a first strip portion, a bent portion, and a second strip portion in the sectional view, the first strip portion being disposed away from the fastener tape, the bent portion extending from the first strip portion and having a bent shape, and the second strip portion extending from the bent portion and being disposed in the first strip portion overlappingly (see annotated Fig. 1),
wherein a part of the sewn portion is disposed between the first strip portion and the second strip portion of the double-layer portion (see annotated Fig. 1),
wherein the sewn portion is disposed away from the plurality of fastener elements, and the bent portion is disposed in contact with or close to the plurality of fastener elements (see annotated Fig. 1), and
wherein a waterproof region is formed between the sewn portion and the plurality of fastener elements, resulting from the relative positions of the sewn portion joining the double-layer portion and the fastener tape together, the bent portion of the double-layer portion, and the plurality of fastener elements (see annotated Fig. 1), and
Defazio et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the sewn portion is disposed away from the fastener elements by a separation distance of 10.0 mm or less in a tape width direction of the fastener tape. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the sewn portion is disposed away from the fastener elements by a separation distance of 10.0 mm or less in a tape width direction of the fastener tape, 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 have a relative distance between the sewn portion and the fastener elements for the design application being used.
Regarding claim 2, Defazio et al. discloses, wherein the bent portion is disposed away from the sewn portion and is disposed in contact with the fastener elements (see annotated Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Defazio et al. discloses, wherein the fastener tape and the second strip portion are bonded to each other in at least a part of a region between the bent portion and the sewn portion (see annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Defazio et al. discloses, wherein the bent portion is formed to enable maintenance of the bent shape of the bent portion by being subjected to a heat treatment (see annotated Fig. 1). The recitation limitation “a heat treatment” is directed to a product-by-process claim wherein the process relied upon is “a heat treatment”. This limitation is not given a patentable weight since the structural limitations of the claimed product are met (see annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Defazio et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the sewn portion is disposed away from the fastener elements by a separation distance of 0.5 mm or more in a tape width direction of the fastener tape. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the sewn portion is disposed away from the fastener elements by a separation distance of 0.5 mm or more in a tape width direction of the fastener tape, 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 have a relative distance between the sewn portion and the fastener elements for the design application being used.
Regarding claim 6, Defazio et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a dimension from an outer surface of the first strip portion of the double-layer portion to an outer surface of the second strip portion of the double-layer portion in a tape thickness direction of the fastener tape is 0.25 mm or more and 5.0 mm or less. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a dimension from an outer surface of the first strip portion of the double-layer portion to an outer surface of the second strip portion of the double-layer portion in a tape thickness direction of the fastener tape is 0.25 mm or more and 5.0 mm or less, 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 have a relative distance between the outer surface of the first strip portion and the outer surface of the second strip portion for the design application being used.
Regarding claim 7, Defazio et al. discloses, wherein the bent portion is close to a position of forming the sewn portion and to the plurality of fastener elements in a left-and-right direction (see annotated Fig. 1).
Defazio et al. does not discloses the sewn portion is disposed away from the fastener elements by a separation distance of 0.5 mm or more and 3.0 mm or less in a tape width direction of the fastener tape. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the sewn portion is disposed away from the fastener elements by a separation distance of 0.5 mm or more and 3.0 mm or less in a tape width direction of the fastener tape, 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 have a relative distance between the sewn portion and the fastener elements for the design application being used.
Regarding claim 8, Defazio et al. discloses, wherein each of the fastener elements includes an element base and a fin portion, the element base including a portion having a constant dimension in a tape thickness direction of the fastener tape, the fin portion extending from the element base toward an inner region of the fastener tape and having a dimension less than the dimension of the element base in the tape thickness direction (see annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
333
827
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-11, filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Defazio et al. broadly discloses wherein a waterproof region is formed between the sewn portion and the plurality of fastener elements, resulting from the relative positions of the sewn portion joining the double-layer portion and the fastener tape together, the bent portion of the double-layer portion, and the plurality of fastener elements (see annotated Fig. 1), and
it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the sewn portion is disposed away from the fastener elements by a separation distance of 10.0 mm or less in a tape width direction of the fastener tape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the relative dimension of a component.
Defazio et al. discloses a portion of the waterproof region (37) is formed between the sewn portion (32) and the plurality of fastener elements (17), and the sewn portion (32) joining the double-layer portion and the fastener tape (14, 15) together (see annotated Fig. 1).
Applicant's arguments are more limiting than the claimed invention.
Examiner’s Comment
In view of applicant’s amendments to the claims submitted in the reply filed on 02/26/2026, the claim rejections under 35 USC § 102 indicated in the prior Office action have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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