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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This non-final action on the merits is in response to the request for continued examination including remarks and amendments received by the office on 08 May 2026. Claims 24-30, 32-43, 45-49 are pending. Claims 24-28 are withdrawn as non-elected. Claims 29 and 45 are amended. Claims 46-49 are newly added. Claims 31 and 44 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 47 be found allowable, claim 48 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 29 be found allowable, claim 49 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 46 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 specification as originally filed does not teach or properly suggest a measuring step.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 29, 30, 32-43, and 45-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the preform" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this preform refers to the previously established “first preform” or another preform structure.
Claim 48 recites the limitation "the preform" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this preform refers to the previously established “first preform” or another preform structure.
Claim 49 recites the limitation "the preform" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this preform refers to the previously established “first preform” or another preform structure.
Examiner notes that the phrase, “the preform” is repeated twice more in each of claims 29, 48 and 49 as well as claims 39, 41, 43 and 46.
Claim 46 recites the limitation "the longitudinal direction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 47 recites the limitation "the material of the tape aligned with the stems" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 48 recites the limitation "the material of the tape aligned with the stems" in line 22 spanning to 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 46, 47 and 48 were each rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for new matter and 35 USC 112(b) for limitations lacking antecedent basis. For the purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as follows:
Claim 46 – the claimed measuring step will be treated as a statement of orientation of the stem and rib. The longitudinal direction will be the height axis of the stem, the transverse direction will be the portion of the top of the preform in the generally transverse direction to the stem.
Claims 47 and 48 – the claimed subsequent cooling step will be treated as solidification subsequent to extrusion. The material of the tape aligned with the stems will be treated as claimed. Examiner notes that as claimed, the tape includes the preform and base together.
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) 29, 30, 32, 34, 36-43, and 45-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 6,432,339 to Jens et al. (‘339 hereafter) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0101056 to Sen Mai Cheng (‘056 hereafter), both of record per applicant disclosure.
Regarding claim 29, ‘339 teaches a method of forming a retaining device with hooks, wherein: - a molding strip is provided that presents an inside face and an outside face, and that has a plurality of cavities, each cavity defining a stem extending from the outside face towards the inside face (Fig 1 item 30); - the molding strip is positioned on rotary drive means comprising at least two rollers, the inside face of the molding strip being arranged to bear against the drive means (fig 1 item 30, 20a and 20b); in a dispensing step, molding material is dispensed against the outside face of the molding strip by material dispenser means arranged facing the molding strip in such a manner as to define a gap between the material dispenser means and the molding strip, the step of dispensing the molding material being performed in such a manner as to fill said gap and the cavities with molding material so as to form a tape comprising a base of thickness that is defined by the gap, and first preforms projecting from said base each comprising at least a stem, the first preforms being formed by the molding material in the cavities of the molding strip (Fig 1 item 14, 16);- in an unmolding step, the tape and the first preforms are unmolded (Fig 1 item C and 12). ‘339 does not teach a further forming step. In the same field of endeavor, hook fastener molding, ‘056 teaches the method wherein during a forming step, the unmolded tape is inserted in a forming device so as to modify shapes of the first preforms by forming, wherein the preform comprises a rib that extends at least partially over an upper face of the preform, said rib having a length that is greater than a diameter of the stem (Fig 5 item 68 – the V-shaped free end extends beyond the stem 66 along at least the machine direction axis) and the forming device modifies the shape of the preform, including the shape of the rib so as to form a catch portion (Fig 5 items 50, 52, 68 and 68’) for the benefit of increasing the nascent hook fastener’s engagement with loop fabric. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘339 with those of ‘056 for the benefit of forming hook fasteners with high engagement.
Regarding claim 30, ‘339 is silent with respect to the forming device. In the same field of endeavor, hook fastener formation, ‘056 teaches the method wherein the forming device comprises an element at ambient temperature or at a non-regulated temperature (Fig 5 item 52 and paragraph 0027), and at least one element at a temperature that lies strictly between a heat deflection temperature and a melting temperature of the molding material (Fig 5 item 50 and paragraph 0027) for the benefit of increasing the nascent hook fastener’s engagement with loop fabric. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘339 with those of ‘056 for the benefit of forming hook fasteners with high engagement.
Regarding claim 32, ‘339 teaches the method wherein a height of the rib as measured along a direction perpendicular to a plane of the base lies in the range 0.005 mm to 0.1 mm, or in the range 0.01 mm to 0.08 mm (C2L43-C2L46 0.020 inches or less).
Regarding claim 34, ‘056 teaches the method wherein the first preforms are arranged in a staggered or honeycomb arrangement (Fig 2a and 2b) for the benefit of increasing the nascent hook fastener’s engagement with loop fabric. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘339 with those of ‘056 for the benefit of forming hook fasteners with high engagement.
Regarding claim 36, ‘339 teaches the method wherein portions of the cavities forming the stems are generally frustoconical or circularly cylindrical in shape about an axis perpendicular to the outside face of the molding strip (Fig 13A items 134).
Regarding claim 37, ‘339 teaches the method wherein the molding strip comprises portions of the cavities forming heads that present a shape that is substantially frustoconical or hexahedral (Fig 13A items 134).
Regarding claim 38, ‘339 teaches the method wherein the stem of each preform presents symmetry of rotation about an axis that is perpendicular to a top face of the base (Figs 17 and 18, item 86).
Regarding claim 39, ‘339 the method wherein each preform presents symmetry relative to a plane extending in a longitudinal direction of the base and containing the axis of the stem of the preform (Figs 17 and 18, item 86).
Regarding claim 40, ‘056 teaches the method wherein each preform presents a head, and the head of each preform includes at least one catch portion that extends radially relative to the top end of the stem, the at least one catch portion includes a downwardly sloping free end (Fig 5 item 68). It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘339 with those of ‘056 for the benefit of forming hook fasteners with high engagement.
Regarding claim 41, ‘056 teaches the method wherein the molding material is polypropylene, and wherein during the forming step, at least one forming element of the forming device is maintained at a temperature lying in the range 75 to 165 Celsius or substantially equal to 120°C (paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 42, ‘339 teaches the method wherein the preforms present a shape that is asymmetrical relative to a plane that is transverse to a longitudinal direction of the base (Figs 9-11).
Regarding claim 43, ‘056 teaches the method wherein the forming device modifies the shape of the preform, including the shape of the rib, by using a roller (Fig 5 item 50). It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘339 with those of ‘056 for the benefit of forming hook fasteners with high engagement.
Regarding claim 45, ‘339 teaches the method wherein the molding strip is made by superposing a plurality of strips each strip being continuous over a longitudinal direction (Fig 8 items 54).
Regarding claim 46, ‘339 teaches the method wherein the length of the rib of the preform is measured along a direction transverse to the longitudinal direction (Fig. 18 items 84 and 86).
Regarding claim 47, ‘339 teaches the method which comprises a subsequent cooling step, where the material of the tape is aligned with the stems shrinks so that the tape presents portions of different thicknesses (C3L43-C3L44, Fig. 25 item 78).
Regarding claim 48, ‘339 teaches the method of forming a retaining device with hooks, wherein: a molding strip is provided that presents an inside face and an outside face, and that has a plurality of cavities, each cavity defining a stem extending from the outside face towards the inside face (Fig 1 item 30); the molding strip is positioned on rotary drive means comprising at least two rollers, the inside face of the molding strip being arranged to bear against the drive means (fig 1 item 30, 20a and 20b); in a dispensing step, molding material is dispensed against the outside face of the molding strip by material dispenser means arranged facing the molding strip in such a manner as to define a gap between the material dispenser means and the molding strip, the step of dispensing the molding material being performed in such a manner as to fill said gap and the cavities with molding material so as to form a tape comprising a base of thickness that is defined by the gap, and first preforms projecting from said base each comprising at least a stem, the first preforms being formed by the molding material in the cavities of the molding strip; in an unmolding step, the tape and the first preforms are unmolded (Fig 1 item C and 12); and wherein the method comprises a subsequent cooling step, where the material of the tape aligned with the stems shrinks so that the tape presents portions of different thicknesses (C3L43-C3L44, Fig. 25 item 78).
‘339 does not teach a further forming step. In the same field of endeavor, hook fastener molding, ‘056 teaches the method wherein during a forming step, the unmolded tape is inserted in a forming device so as to modify shapes of the first preforms by forming, wherein the preform comprises a rib that extends at least partially over an upper face of the preform, and the forming device modifies the shape of the preform, including the shape of the rib so as to form a catch portion (Fig 5 item 68 – the V-shaped free end extends beyond the stem 66 along at least the machine direction axis and Fig 5 items 50, 52, 68 and 68’) for the benefit of increasing the nascent hook fastener’s engagement with loop fabric. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘339 with those of ‘056 for the benefit of forming hook fasteners with high engagement.
Regarding claim 49, ‘339 teaches the method of forming a retaining device with hooks, wherein: a molding strip is provided that presents an inside face and an outside face, and that has a plurality of cavities, each cavity defining a stem extending from the outside face towards the inside face (Fig 1 item 30); the molding strip is positioned on rotary drive means comprising at least two rollers, the inside face of the molding strip being arranged to bear against the drive means (fig 1 item 30, 20a and 20b); in a dispensing step, molding material is dispensed against the outside face of the molding strip by material dispenser means arranged facing the molding strip in such a manner as to define a gap between the material dispenser means and the molding strip, the step of dispensing the molding material being performed in such a manner as to fill said gap and the cavities with molding material so as to form a tape comprising a base of thickness that is defined by the gap, and first preforms projecting from said base each comprising at least a stem, the first preforms being formed by the molding material in the cavities of the molding strip; in an unmolding step, the tape and the first preforms are unmolded (Fig 1 item C and 12).
‘339 does not teach a further forming step. In the same field of endeavor, hook fastener molding, ‘056 teaches the method wherein during a forming step, the unmolded tape is inserted in a forming device so as to modify shapes of the first preforms by forming, wherein the preform comprises a rib that extends at least partially over an upper face of the preform, and the forming device modifies the shape of the preform, including the shape of the rib so as to form a catch portion with a rib extending from said catch portion ) for the benefit of increasing the nascent hook fastener’s engagement with loop fabric. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘339 with those of ‘056 for the benefit of forming hook fasteners with high engagement.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘339 in view of ‘056 as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 5,643,651 to Ryuichi Murasaki (‘651 hereafter).
Regarding claim 33, ‘339 in view of ‘056 does not teach polypropylene. In the same field of endeavor, hook fastener formation, ‘651 teaches the method wherein the molding material is polypropylene or a formulation based on polypropylene, and the dispensing step is performed at a pressure lying in the range 10 bar to 100 bar, or in the range 30 bar to 50 bar, and at a temperature lying in the range 150°C to 300°C (C5L35-C5L52) for the benefit of forming a durable hook fastener. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘339 in view of ‘056 with those of ‘651 for the benefit of forming hook fasteners from an economic and readily available material.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘339 in view of ‘056 as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0237779 to Christopher M. Gallant (‘779 hereafter), of record per applicant disclosure.
Regarding claim 35, ‘339 in view of ‘056 does not teach plastic deformation. In the same field of endeavor, formation of hook fasteners, ‘779 teaches the method wherein during unmolding, the strip and the first preforms are unmolded in such a manner as to deform the first preforms plastically so as to obtain second preforms of shapes that are different from the shapes of the first preforms, the second preforms each comprising a head , a height of the head of the second preform is increased (paragraph 0080) for the benefit of forming hook fasteners in a continuous manner. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘339 in view of ‘056 with those of ‘779 for the benefit of continuously forming hook fasteners. The combination of ‘339 in view of ‘056 in view of ‘779 does not teach the claimed elongation percentage. However, it has been held that finding optimum or workable ranges of art recognized result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One possessed of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the claimed elongation percentage for the benefit of reducing the stem diameter sufficiently to affect an unmolding step without breaking the stem.
Response to Arguments
In support of the patentability of the instant claims, applicant argues that regarding claims 29 and its dependents and claims 48 and 49, applicant argues that the previously applied prior art combination, ‘339 in view of ‘056 fails to teach the claims as amended (claim 29 and dependents) or presented (claims 48 and 49). Specifically, applicant argues that the ‘056 reference does not teach the rib structure as claimed. After careful review of the amended claims and prior art, examiner is unpersuaded by this argument. Applicant’s arguments regarding the claimed rib are not commensurate in scope with the claimed structure of the rib.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights