DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 2/16/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-7 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 1 recites the limitation “the plate is disposed on the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure and the at least one stake extends from the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure to the second side of the three-dimensional mesh structure, through the first body and into the second body”. The limitation is unclear as to is “the three-dimensional mesh structure” the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body or of the second body (i.e. “each of the first body and the second body comprise a plurality of extruded polymer filaments randomly oriented and bonded together to form a three-dimensional mesh structure comprising at least a first side and a second side”)? The limitation appears directed to - - the plate is disposed on the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body and the at least one stake extends from the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body to the second side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body, through the first body and into the second body - -. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehmann et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0336329) in view of Mayer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0016843) and/or Toyozumi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0061245).
Regarding claim 1, Lehmann (Figures 1-7 and 10 and Paragraphs 0020, 0044, and 0082-0094) discloses an apparatus, comprising: a fastener (connecting element 21 or alternatively connecting element 31 or alternatively connecting element 41) comprising at least one stake (pin portions 21.2, 21.3) and a plate (bridge portion 21.1), wherein the at least one stake extends from one side of the plate; and a first body (first flat product part 1) and a second body (second flat product part 2), wherein each of the first body and the second body comprise a plurality of for example polymer (such as polyethylene see paragraph 0044) filaments (fibers) for example randomly oriented (in the form of fiber tangles see paragraphs 0020 and 0044 and fiber tangles considered randomly oriented) and bonded together (bonded by at least melting and re-solidification of the stake see Figures 3 and 4 and Paragraphs 0087-0090) to form a three-dimensional mesh structure (for example comprising empty spaces see paragraph 0020) comprising at least a first side and a second side, wherein: the plate is disposed on the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body and the plate and the at least one stake extends from the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body to the second side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body, through the first body and into the second body (see Figures 3 or 4), a distal end of the at least one stake comprises a head (melted and re-solidified foot portion 11.2/21.2 in Figures 3 or 4 considered the head), and a portion of the plurality of polymer filaments are disposed between the head and the first side. As to the limitation in claim 1 of “each of the first body and the second body comprise a plurality of extruded polymer filaments randomly oriented and bonded together to form a three-dimensional mesh structure”, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention each of the first body and the second body taught by Lehmann comprise a plurality of polymer (polyethylene) filaments randomly oriented (as fiber tangles) and bonded together (at least by melting and re-solidification of the stake) to form a three-dimensional mesh structure (comprising empty spaces) following that expressly set forth by Lehmann as exemplary for each of the first body and the second body see Figures 3 and 4 and Paragraphs 0020, 0044, and 0082.
Regarding claim 8, Lehmann discloses (as prima facie obvious see above) an apparatus, comprising: a first body (first flat product part 1) comprising a plurality of polymer (polyethylene) filaments (fibers) randomly oriented (fiber tangles) and welded together (at least by melting and re-solidification of the stake) to form a three-dimensional mesh structure (comprising empty spaces) in a first shape comprises at least a first side and a second side; and a base plate (bridge portion 21.1) disposed on the first side of the first body and a plurality of polymer stakes (pin portions 21.2, 21.3) extending from the base plate through the first body toward the second side of the first body, wherein a distal end of each of the plurality of polymer stakes comprises a head (melted and re-solidified foot portion 11.2/21.2 in Figure 4 considered the head), wherein the head comprises a retention surface facing the base plate (surface of 11.2 facing the base plate see Figure 4) that engages the polymer filaments of the first body (through a second body in an analogous manner to the same as in the instant invention and including see claim 9) that are disposed between the retention surface and the base plate.
Regarding claim 9, Lehmann teaches a second body (second flat product part 2) comprising a second plurality of polymer (polyethylene) filaments (fibers) randomly oriented (fiber tangles) and welded together (at least by melting and re-solidification of the stake) to form a second three-dimensional mesh structure (comprising empty spaces) comprises at least a first side and a second side, wherein the second body is assembled onto the first body (see Figure 4) and wherein the plurality of polymer stakes are inserted into the second body and the first body to secure the second body to the first body.
As the limitations in claim 1 of “the plate is disposed on the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure and the at least one stake extends from the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure” and in claim 8 of “a base plate disposed on the first side of the first body and a plurality of polymer stakes extending from the base plate through the first side of the first body”, Lehmann teaches the base plate is disposed on the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body by for example continued melting and pressing (pushing) until essentially fully countersunk in the structure and for example flush with the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body (Paragraph 0086). Lehmann further teaches the length of the base plate and the plurality of polymer stakes exceeds the total thickness of the first body and the second body (Paragraph 0083) suggesting (at least as an alternative) the base plate is then less than fully countersunk on the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body. In summary, Lehmann does not teach away from the base plate is less than essentially fully countersunk and not flush as essentially fully countersunk and flush is merely exemplary. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the plate (body 7 of Mayer and head part 123 of Toyozumi) is disposed on the first side of the three-dimensional structure (third object 30 or second object 2 of Mayer and first member 131 of Toyozumi) as less than fully countersunk in the structure and not flush with the first side of the three-dimensional structure (as a function of the degree of melting and pressing/pushing) including as disposed above and on the first side of the three-dimensional structure and the stake (protrusions 9 and 213 of Mayer and middle part 125 of Toyozumi) passing through the first side (see Figures 19a, 19b and 32a, 32b of Mayer and Figure 7C of Toyozumi) and including as alternative to the plate is disposed on the first side of the three-dimensional structure by fully countersunk in the structure and flush with the first surface of the three-dimensional structure (see Figures 3b-3d of Mayer and Figure 6C of Toyozumi) as evidenced by Mayer and/or Toyozumi. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the base plate taught by Lehmann is disposed on the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body by less than fully countersunk within the structure and not flush with the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body (as a function of the degree of melting and pressing/pushing) including as disposed on the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body and the at least one stake extends from the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body/the plurality of polymer stakes extending from the base plate through the first side of the first body as a simple substitution of one known exemplary disposing of the base plate on the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body for another to obtain predictable results as evidenced by Mayer and/or Toyozumi and including as is consistent with Lehmann teaching the length of the base plate and the plurality of stakes exceeds the total thickness of the first body and the second body.
As to the limitations in claims 1, 8, and 9 of “extruded” polymer filaments and in claim 3 of “wherein the distal end of the at least one stake is tapered toward a tip of the distal end before the at least one stake is inserted into the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure”, Lehmann does not expressly teach the polymer filaments were extruded. However, the claims are directed to an apparatus/product wherein these limitations are directed to the method of producing the apparatus/product, i.e. “Product-by-Process Claims” see MPEP 2113. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production (although for clarity of the record it is noted Lehmann expressly teaches wherein the distal end of the at least one stake is tapered toward a tip of the distal end before the at least one stake is inserted into the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure see Figure 5). If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art (see Lehmann as modified by Mayer and/or Toyozumi as set forth in full detail above), although produced by a different process (the plurality of polymer filaments although not expressly extruded are capable of being produced so), the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product.
Regarding claim 2, the head (melted and re-solidified foot portion 11.2/21.2 in Figure 4 considered the head) taught by Lehmann is recessed inside the second body (see Figure 4), and wherein the head contacts a first portion of the filaments between the head and the second side of the second body (between the head and the second side of the second body wherein the second side of the second body is considered the upper side and between the head at rounded side edges thereof and the second side of the second body wherein the second side of the second body is considered the lower side).
Regarding claim 4, the melted and re-solidified distal end of the stake and including the head as taught by Lehmann is a weld securing the distal end of the at least one stake and including the head to a first portion of the filaments (see Figures 3 and 4 wherein the first portion of the filaments are at least those covered with the melted and re-solidified distal end and including the head).
Regarding claim 5, a second portion of the filaments taught by Lehmann (see Figures 3 and 4 wherein at least a portion of the filaments between the ends of the stake and adjacent to but not covered by the melted and re-solidified stake) resist removal of the at least one stake due to interference between the head and the second portion of the filaments.
Regarding claim 6, the at least one stake taught by Lehmann comprises a plurality of stakes extending from the plate (see Figure 5 or 6 or 7).
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehmann in view of Eaton et al. (EP 0421649) and further Mayer and/or Toyozumi.
Regarding claims 1-6, 8, and 9, Lehmann is described above in full detail not repeated here for brevity.
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “each of the first body and the second body comprise a plurality of extruded polymer filaments randomly oriented and bonded together”, in claim 8 of “a first body comprising a plurality of extruded polymer filaments randomly oriented and welded together”, and in claim 9 of “a second body comprising a second plurality of extruded polymer filaments randomly oriented and welded together” (the following rejection of claims 1-6, 8, and 9 as to these limitations made as an alternative to that set forth above and claim 10 further rejected herein) and regarding claim 10, Lehmann is not limited to any particular first body and second body teaching each body comprises for example a plurality of filaments (fibers) such as continuous filaments (Paragraph 0011) formed of polyethylene (Paragraph 0044) in the form of fiber tangles or structures (Paragraph 0020) and may further include a provisional fixation (Paragraph 0047). Eaton (Page 3, lines 17-38 and 56-58 and Page 4, line 59 to Page 5, line 13 and Page 6, lines 5-9) teaches a self-bonded nonwoven (as a fused fiber entangled structure as a three-dimensional mesh structure) having a uniformity in basis weight and coverage and nearly balanced physical properties in the machine direction (MD) and cross direction (CD) useful in a wide variety of applications comprising a plurality of extruded continuous Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) or High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) polymer filaments randomly oriented and bonded/welded (by fusing and entanglement) together. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention each of the first body and the second body taught by Lehmann comprise a self-bonded nonwoven comprising a plurality of extruded polymer filaments formed of LLDPE or HDPE randomly oriented and bonded together as taught by Eaton not only as a simple substitution of one body comprising a plurality of filaments consistent with that disclosed by Lehmann but so that each body has a uniformity in basis weight and coverage and nearly balanced physical properties in the MD and CD and is useful in a wide variety of applications.
As the limitation in claim 1 of “the plate is disposed on the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure and the at least one stake extends from the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure to the second side of the three-dimensional mesh structure” and in claim 8 of “a base plate disposed on the first side of the first body and a plurality of polymer stakes extending from the base plate through the first side of the first body”, Lehmann and Mayer and/or Toyozumi are each described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the base plate taught by Lehmann is disposed on the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body by less than fully countersunk within the structure and not flush with the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body (as a function of the degree of melting and pressing/pushing) including as disposed on the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body and the at least one stake extends from the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body/the plurality of polymer stakes extending from the base plate through the first side of the first body as a simple substitution of one known exemplary disposing of the base plate on the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body for another to obtain predictable results as evidenced by Mayer and/or Toyozumi and including as is consistent with Lehmann teaching the length of the base plate and the plurality of stakes exceeds the total thickness of the first body and second body.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehmann and Mayer and/or Toyozumi as applied to claims 1-6, 8, and 9 above, and further in view of Mayer. Additionally, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehmann and Eaton and further Mayer and/or Toyozumi as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-10 above, and further in view of Mayer.
Regarding claim 7, Lehmann does not expressly teach a clip disposed on the fastener on a second side of the plate, wherein the clip is adapted to be attached to a support structure. Lehmann depicts (see Figures 5-7) the second side of the plate as flat without teaching away from a clip. It is known to one of ordinary skill in the art such a plate (body 7) for a fastener further comprise a clip (connector 15) disposed on the fastener on a second side of the plate, wherein the clip is adapted to be attached to a support structure (another item such as cables and/or wires) as evidenced by Mayer (Figures 9 and 40 and Paragraphs 0592, 0613, 0614, and 0615). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the fastener taught by Lehmann as modified by Mayer and/or Toyozumi and Lehmann as modified by Eaton and further Mayer and/or Toyozumi comprise a clip disposed on the fastener on a second side of the plate, wherein the clip is adapted to be attached to a support structure to provide for attaching the fastener to a support structure as is known in the art as taught by Mayer.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehmann and Mayer and/or Toyozumi as applied to claims 1-6, 8, and 9 above, and further in view of Eaton.
Regarding claim 10, Lehmann is described above in full detail. Lehmann does not expressly teach the plurality of polymer filaments formed of polyethylene is formed of either Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) or High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE). It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art of forming a plurality of polymer filaments of polyethylene to form a nonwoven web (i.e. in the form of fiber tangles) using in a wide variety of applications is by extruding LLDPE or HDPE as evidenced by Eaton (Page 3, lines 20-25 and 56-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the plurality of polymer filaments taught by Lehmann as modified by Mayer and/or Toyozumi are a plurality of extruded polymer filaments formed of either LLDPE or HDPE as is the conventional and predictable polyethylene to form such filaments from as evidenced by Eaton.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehmann and Mayer and/or Toyozumi as applied to claims 1-6, 8, and 9 above, and further in view of Amjadi et al. (“Tensile Behavior of High-Density Polyethylene Including the Effects of Processing Technique, Thickness, Temperature, and Strain Rate”). Additionally, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehmann and Eaton and further Mayer and/or Toyozumi as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-10 above, and further in view of Amjadi.
Regarding claim 11, Lehmann as modified by Mayer and/or Toyozumi and Lehmann as modified by Eaton and further Mayer and/or Toyozumi above teach all of the limitations in claim 11 except for a specific teaching of the plurality of polymer stakes is formed of either Linear Low-Density Polyethylene (LLDPE) or High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE). Lehmann teaches the plurality of polymer stakes formed of polyethylene (Paragraph 0034) without expressly teaching LLDPE or HDPE. HDPE is one of the most commonly used polymer/grades of polyethylene in many industries having high strength as taught by Amjadi (see page 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the plurality of polymer stakes formed of polyethylene taught by Lehmann as modified by Mayer and/or Toyozumi and Lehmann as modified by Eaton and further Mayer and/or Toyozumi is formed of HDPE not only as a simple substitution of one particular grade of polyethylene to yield predictable results (as is the most commonly used polymer/polyethylene in many industries) but having high strength as evidenced by Amjadi.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/16/2026 have been fully considered.
In view of the amendments filed 2/16/2026 the rejections set forth in the Office action mailed on 11/17/2025 are withdrawn. The claims as amended are fully addressed above.
Applicant argues, “However, Lehmann completely fails to teach or suggest that a bridge portion (21.1) is disposed on the first side of the first product part (1). In fact, as shown in above annotated Figure 4 of Lehmann, clearly the bridge portion (21.1) is fully countersunk inside the first product part (1), unlike the claimed invention, where a plate (112) is disposed on a first side of a three-dimensional mesh structure (120’ A) (refer below annotated Figure 5E of as-filed Specification).” and “However, Lehmann fails to teach or suggest that the two pin portions (21.2 and 21.3) extend from any first side of the first product part (1) to any second side of the second product part (2). In fact, as shown in above annotated Figure 4 of Lehmann, clearly the two pin portions (21.2 and 21.3) are fully counter sunk inside the first product part (1) and the second product part (2), unlike the claimed invention, where at least one stake (114) extends from a first side of a three-dimensional mesh structure (120’A) to a second side of a three-dimensional mesh structure (102”B), as recited in independent claim 1 (refer below annotated Figures 5C and 5E of as-filed Specification).”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein as noted above Lehmann teaches the base plate is disposed on the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body by for example continued melting and pressing (pushing) until essentially fully countersunk in the structure and for example flush with the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body (Paragraph 0086). Lehmann further teaches the length of the base plate and the plurality of polymer stakes exceeds the total thickness of the first body and the second body (Paragraph 0083) suggesting (at least as an alternative) the base plate is then less than fully countersunk on the first side of the three-dimensional mesh structure of the first body. In summary, Lehmann does not teach away from the base plate is less than essentially fully countersunk and not flush as essentially fully countersunk and flush is merely exemplary wherein Lehmann as modified by Mayer and/or Toyozumi above teach the amended limitations. It is further noted the claims are not commensurate in scope with “unlike the claimed invention, where at least one stake (114) extends from a first side of a three-dimensional mesh structure (120’A) to a second side of a three-dimensional mesh structure (102”B), as recited in independent claim 1” wherein the second side of the second body is the side not contacting the first body as none of the claims recite such a limitation.
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 JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights