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 non-final Office action responsive to the reply filed on 06/06/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 14 and 20 have been amended.
Claim 18 has been canceled.
Claim 21 was added.
Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/06/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2 “the same height” should be - - a same height - -.
Claim 5, line 2 “with their curved stem parts” should be - - with the stem parts curved - -.
Claim 5, line 3 “their head parts” should be - - the head parts - -.
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 1-4, 8, 14-17 and 21 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 Shimizu (JP 2017-148261 A cited by applicant).
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, Shimizu teaches the stem parts are curved in an arc shape with a same or different orientation (see annotated Fig. 2c).
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 shape of the stem parts from Ausen with an arc shape as taught by Shimizu in order to have an alternative shape and to facilitate the engagement of the hook element with loop element.
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 Shimizu 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. 2c from Shimizu).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ausen et al. in view of Shimizu discloses, wherein the arc-shaped 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. 2c from Shimizu).
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 the 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 21, the combination of Ausen et al. in view of Shimizu discloses, wherein no portion of the arc shape of the stem part projects towards the carrier part (see annotated Fig. 2c from Shimizu).
PNG
media_image1.png
312
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
375
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 5 and 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 Shimizu (JP 2017-148261 A cited by applicant) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 106858927 B cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 5, Ausen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for 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
However, Wang et al. teaches the interlocking elements with their stem parts (21) are inclined towards one another in pairs with their head parts (22), forming a kind of clamp-like receiving opening (see Fig. 1).
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 interlocking element from Ausen, and incline the stem parts towards one another in pairs with their head parts as taught by Wang, in order to be used without distinguishing the direction and increase the ease of use.
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.
However, Wang et al. teaches the largest head-part diameter of the interlocking element is at most 5% larger than the respective diameter of the stem part (the head-part diameter and stem part diameter is within the 5%, see page 2, lines 5 and 7 from the translation).
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 interlocking element from Ausen and changing the largest head-part diameter of the interlocking element at most 5% larger than the respective diameter of the stem part as taught by Wang in order to improve the durability of the fastening, reduces noise and easy to hook to a sweater.
Claims 1-4, 8, 14-17 and 21 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 Wang et al. (CN 106858927 B 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 a number of the 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.
However, Wang et al. teaches the largest head-part diameter of the interlocking element is at most 5% larger than the respective diameter of the stem part (the head-part diameter and stem part diameter is within the 5%, see page 2, lines 5 and 7 from the translation).
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 interlocking element from Ausen and changing the largest head-part diameter of the interlocking element at most 5% larger than the respective diameter of the stem part as taught by Wang in order to improve the durability of the fastening, reduces noise and easy to hook to a sweater.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 06/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 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 Shimizu. Applicant’s arguments are related more about two different methods of manufacturing process, which is not claimed in claim 1 and not given patentable weight since the structural limitations of the claimed product are met. Shimizu teaches the stem parts are curved in an arc shape with a same orientation (see annotated Fig. 2c), in order to have an alternative shape and to facilitate the engagement of the hook element with loop element. Ausen discloses that head and stem comprises a wide variety of shapes (see paragraph [0051]).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 19 under 35 USC § 103 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 Shimizu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. Wang et al. teaches the largest head-part diameter of the interlocking element is at most 5% larger than the respective diameter of the stem part (the head-part diameter and stem part diameter is within the 5%, see page 2, lines 5 and 7 from the translation).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 20 under 35 USC § 103 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 Wang et al. Wang et al. teaches the largest head-part diameter of the interlocking element is at most 5% larger than the respective diameter of the stem part (the head-part diameter and stem part diameter is within the 5%, see page 2, lines 5 and 7 from the translation).
Examiner’s Comment
In view of applicant’s amendments to the claims submitted in the reply filed on 06/06/2026, the drawing objections indicated in the prior Office action have been withdrawn.
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