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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomohiro et al. (US 2013/0305499) in view of Annaka et al. (US 2023/0309663).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Tomohiro et al. discloses an apparatus (101), comprising:
a fastener tape body (103), and
a reinforcing portion (107a) provided on at least one main surface of the fastener tape body (Fig. 1 as shown),
wherein the reinforcing portion is a single layer is impregnated and solidified, in the fastener tape body (paragraph 38 describes wherein the reinforced portion penetrates the fastener tape and is cured).
Tomohiro fails to disclose wherein the adhesive is a polypropylene resin sheet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use polypropylene in place of the adhesive used in Tomohiro since Applicant has not disclosed that polypropylene and its variants provide any particular advantage, purpose, or solution over other materials. Instead, Applicant, has only provided within the disclosure what is believed to be an optimal methodology for how to use polypropylene for the reinforcing portions. The cured adhesive of the prior art appears to be able to perform equally well as the clamed invention since it also penetrates into the fastener tape (Paragraph 40, lines 1-2), helping prevent peel off from the tape. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Tomohiro et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claim. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Tomohiro further fails to disclose only a partial and incomplete part of the reinforcing portion is impregnated in the fastener tape body.
Annaka et al. teach partial impregnation (Fig. 4 shows layer 16d layered over a core portion 16c. Paragraph 120 describes wherein this layer is impregnated in the core. The presence of distinct layers is indicative that this impregnation is partial/incomplete).
From this teaching of Annaka et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the reinforcing layer to provide a water impermeable face to the fastener tape ends to prevent wicking within the substrate of the fastener tape.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Tomohiro further discloses wherein the reinforcing portion and the fastener tape body are crosslinked by carbodiimide (Paragraph 38, lines 1-4).
Tomohiro et al. fail to disclose wherein the fastener tape body comprises polyethylene terephthalate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use polyethylene terephthalate for the tap body since Applicant has not disclosed that polyethylene terephthalate provides any particular advantage, purpose or solution over other materials. Instead, Applicant appears to only suggest that the material allows for crosslinking with the reinforcing portion. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the combination of the polyethylene terephthalate tape and cured adhesive (as modified in claim 1 above) because the necessary crosslinking is still provided herein to prevent peel off. Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to modify Tomohiro et al. to obtain the invention as specified in the claim. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416
Regarding claim 4, Tomohiro et al. further discloses wherein the reinforcing portion and the fastener tape body are crosslinked by cyclic carbodiimide (last 5 lines of Paragraph 47).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Tomohiro et al. discloses the invention except for a thickness d of a fraction in the reinforcing portion which is impregnated and solidified in the fastener tape body is 20 to 115 pm; and a ratio d/D is 0.14 to 0.83, in which d is a thickness of a fraction which is impregnated and solidified in the fastener tape body, and D is a thickness of a reinforcing sheet that is a material of the reinforcing portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to impregnate the tape to the claimed ranges to achieve sufficient reinforcing/cross linking within the fastener tape 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.
Regarding claim 7, Tomohiro et al. further discloses a separable insertion mechanism (106b) on the reinforcing portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant presents arguments wherein Tomohiro “requires the adhesive to completely,” penetrate “into the fastener tape”. Applicant cites Paragraph 58 of Tomohiro wherein Tomohiro suggests high temperatures would result in incomplete penetration. However, the cited language instead merely appears to describe how temperature adjustment can be made to optimize penetration of the adhesive. This paragraph does not appear to support Applicant’s argument.
Applicant proceeds to discuss the language of Paragraph 56 of Tomohiro. This paragraph does not appear to be pertinent to the current issues. Paragraph 56 discusses the excess adhesive on the masking member opening. This is separate from the fastener tape and body and not currently relevant.
Applicant further discusses Paragraph 60 wherein a process C produces an intermediate product that appears possibly to also read on the claimed subject matter. The deeper impregnation provided in Process D does not explicitly mean partial and incomplete impregnation can occur. Further impregnation does not equal complete and full impregnation.
Regarding Annaka, Applicant’s allegation that Annaka recognizes coating and impregnation as two distinct techniques is not persuasive. The usage of “and/or” instead suggests that Annaka that coating and impregnation are not distinct and a coating and impregnate the core.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights