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 12/01/2025.
Claims 1-4 and 15-17 have been amended.
Claims 18-20 were added.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a pressure roller and a forming roller having a screen with open cavities, from claim 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 14 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5 “of interlocking elements” should be - - of the interlocking elements - -.
Claim 4, line 2 “the respective curvature” should be - - the arc-shaped curvature - -.
Claim 14, line 2 “of interlocking elements” should be - - of the interlocking elements - -.
Claim 20, line 5 “of interlocking elements” should be - - of the interlocking elements - -.
Claim 20, line 6 “ofthe” should be - - of the - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 8 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ausen et al. (US Publication No.2011/0256338 cited by applicant), in view of Kopanski et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0193310).
Regarding claim 1, Ausen et al. discloses a fastening device, consisting of:
a plurality of individual spaced-apart interlocking elements made of a plastics material, each of which projects towards one side from a carrier part by being provided with a stem part and a head part (see abstract, and annotated Fig.3);
wherein number of interlocking elements is 100 to 200 pieces per cm2 (see paragraph [0052], lines 7-10);
wherein a respective diameter of the stem part of the interlocking element is 150 to 250 µm (0.15 to 0.25 mm) (see paragraph [0052], lines 10-12);
wherein a height of the interlocking element, calculated from a root-side base on the carrier part to end of the head part, is 1200 to 2200 µm (1.2 to 2.2 mm) (see paragraph [0052], lines 4-7);
wherein a dimension of a largest head-part diameter of the interlocking element is 200 to 400 µm (0.20 to 0.40 mm) (see paragraph [0052], lines 12-15).
Ausen et al. does not disclose the stem parts are curved in an arc shape with a same or different orientation.
However, Kopanski et al. teaches the stem parts are curved in an arc shape with a same or different orientation (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 stem part from Ausen with a curved arc shape in order to have a stronger fastening device and a low-cost to make as taught by Kopanski.
PNG
media_image1.png
312
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
425
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ausen et al. discloses, wherein the interlocking elements all have the same height as viewed from the carrier part and extend away from said carrier part in a vertical or obliquely inclined manner (see annotated Fig. 3), and/or in that pairs of the interlocking elements arranged adjacent to one another on the carrier part form a V- shape or X-shape with one another.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ausen et al. in view of Kopanski et al. discloses, wherein an arc-shaped curvature of the stem part is selected that a free head side of the head part, as viewed in perpendicular projection onto the carrier part, runs within an associated projection line that ends at the root-side base at a transition point between the stem part and the carrier part (see annotated Fig. 3 from Kopanski).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ausen et al. in view of Kopanski et al. discloses, wherein the respective curvature is more curved as viewed in a direction of the head part than in a direction of a root-side end of the stem part (see annotated Fig. 3 from Kopanski).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ausen et al. in view of Kopanski et al. discloses, wherein the interlocking elements with their curved stem parts are inclined towards one another in pairs with their head parts, forming a kind of clamp-like receiving opening (see annotated Fig. 3 from Kopanski).
Regarding claim 8, Ausen et al. discloses, wherein the interlocking elements and/or the carrier part are made of polyester or polyamide, such as PA66, as plastics materials (see paragraph [0059], lines 3-8).
Regarding claim 14, Ausen et al. discloses, wherein the number of interlocking elements is 120 pieces per cm2 (see paragraph [0052], lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 15, Ausen et al. discloses, wherein the diameter of the stem part of the interlocking element is 213 µm (0.213 mm) (see paragraph [0052], lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 16, Ausen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the height of the interlocking element, calculated from the root-side base on the carrier part to the end of the head part, is 1500 to 1980 µm (1.50 to 1.98 mm). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the height of the interlocking element, calculated from the root-side base on the carrier part to the end of the head part, is 1500 to 1980 µm, 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. It will be obvious to have a fastening device with a specific length in order to engage effectively with the opposite surface.
Regarding claim 17, Ausen et al. discloses, wherein the dimension of the largest head-part diameter of the interlocking element is 220 to 290 µm (0.22 to 0.29 mm) (see paragraph [0052], lines 12-15).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Ausen et al. in view of Kopanski et al. discloses, wherein the arc shape of the stem parts are manufactured in a chill roll method using a pressure roller and a forming roller, the forming roller having a screen with open cavities (see annotated Fig. 3 from Kopanski).
The recitation limitation “manufactured in a chill roll method using a pressure roller and a forming roller, the forming roller having a screen with open cavities” is directed to a product-by-process claim wherein the process relied upon is “manufactured in a chill roll method using a pressure roller and a forming roller, the forming roller having a screen with open cavities”. This limitation is not given a patentable weight since the structural limitations of the claimed product are met.
Regarding claim 19, Ausen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the largest head-part diameter of the interlocking element is at most 5% larger than the respective diameter of the stem part. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the largest head-part diameter of the interlocking element is at most 5% larger than the respective diameter of the stem part, 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 have a fastening device with a specific ratio of head and stem diameters.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ausen et al. (US Publication No.2011/0256338 Cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 20, Ausen et al. discloses a fastening device, consisting of:
a plurality of individual spaced-apart interlocking elements made of a plastics material, each of which projects towards one side from a carrier part by being provided with a stem part and a head part (see abstract, and annotated Fig.3);
wherein number of interlocking elements is 100 to 200 pieces per cm2 (see paragraph [0052], lines 7-10);
wherein a respective diameter of the stem part of the interlocking element is 150 to 250 µm (0.15 to 0.25 mm) (see paragraph [0052], lines 10-12);
wherein a height of the interlocking element, calculated from a root-side base on the carrier part to end of the head part, is 1200 to 2200 µm (1.2 to 2.2 mm) (see paragraph [0052], lines 4-7);
wherein a dimension of a largest head-part diameter of the interlocking element is 200 to 400 µm (0.20 to 0.40 mm) (see paragraph [0052], lines 12-15).
Ausen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the largest head-part diameter of the interlocking element is at most 5% larger than the respective diameter of the stem part. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the largest head-part diameter of the interlocking element is at most 5% larger than the respective diameter of the stem part, 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 have a fastening device with a specific ratio of head and stem diameters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in Ausen et al., in view of Kopanski et al. Kopanski et al. teaches the stem parts are curved in an arc shape with a same or different orientation (see annotated Fig. 3). Applicant’s argument is more limiting than the claimed invention.
Examiner’s Comment
In view of applicant’s amendments to the claims submitted in the reply filed on 12/01/2025, 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