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 .
Response to Amendment
In the applicant’s reply of 7 April 2026, the claims were amended. Based on these amendments, the claim objections and § 112 rejections included in the previous office action are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
The applicant's arguments filed 7 April 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant principally argues (pages 7-8) that claim 1 defines a “continuous, curvature-driven geometry” in which the underside of the head forms a concave interlocking surface that transitions seamlessly into the stem, and that Dynic fails to teach this structure because Dynic discloses a head having a frustoconical side surface (4), a bending point (7), a lower spherical surface (3), an edge (5), and a top spherical surface (2). On this basis, applicant urges that Dynic’s “discrete transitions and segmented geometries” cannot meet the claim.
The argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. The claim affirmatively recites “the point of a linear transition” between the convex upper side and the concave interlocking surface. A “linear transition” is itself a line-shaped feature, namely, an edge, where two differently-curved surfaces meet. The claim therefore does not exclude, but rather requires, a discrete transition between the convex top and the concave underside. In Dynic, edge 5 between top spherical surface 2 and lower spherical surface 3 is precisely such a linear transition. The mapping provided in the non-final Office Action, including the annotated Figure 1 of Dynic, is correct: top spherical surface 2 reads on the convex upper side, edge 5 reads on the linear transition, lower spherical surface 3 reads on the concave interlocking surface, and side surface 4 (the surface immediately above filament 1) provides the seamless transfer of the concave interlocking surface into the adjoining stem-like loop end. That Dynic has additional features (such as a frustoconical region) does not avoid the rejection. The question is whether the claim’s recited structural features are met, not whether Dynic has additional structure.
Applicant’s reliance on the “seamlessly transferred” language is also unpersuasive. The specification itself acknowledges that the figures are “reproduced in an idealized manner” and that “irregularities in the form of recesses or projecting points arise on the outer circumference of each head shape, in particular, along its linear transition” (see [0115]). The specification further describes the head shape as merging “seamlessly into the stems 20 or into the loop ends 16” (see [0103]), language that is consistent with smooth, continuous material flow rather than a single-curve geometry free of any intermediate region. Dynic’s lower spherical surface 3 flows through bending point 7 into side surface 4 and then into filament 1 by a continuous melt-and-spread process (see Figure 1 and the description of the formation of the melted and expanded monofilament tip on page 2 of the provided translation), which meets the “seamlessly transferred” limitation as supported by the specification.
Applicant’s contention that combining Dynic with Poulakis would “change the principle of operation” of Dynic (page 8) is misplaced. The rejection does not propose to modify the head geometry of Dynic. As mapped above, the head geometry of Dynic already meets the claim. Poulakis is relied upon only for the formation of the loops by cutting from a fabric base structure (see [0044] and Figure 2 of Poulakis), which is a separate aspect from head geometry. The combination therefore does not require any modification to Dynic’s combination of frustoconical and spherical regions or to its fastening characteristics. For the same reason, applicant’s separate contention that Poulakis “does not disclose or suggest forming a concave interlocking surface” (page 8) does not overcome the rejection. Poulakis is not cited for the head shape, which is taught by Dynic itself.
Applicant’s contention that the claimed geometry provides “surface-to-surface engagement based on complementary curvature, rather than the point or edge engagement characteristic of conventional hook or mushroom-type fasteners” (page 8) relies on functional characterizations that are not recited in claim 1. Claim 1 recites a structural arrangement (a convex upper side, a linear transition, a concave interlocking surface, and seamless transfer to the stem). It does not recite any particular mode of engagement, complementary curvature relationship, or comparison to point or edge engagement. Limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP 2111.01.
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.
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 1-2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H07-41363 (“Dynic”) in view of US 2016/0309856 (“Poulakis”), EP 0 211 564 (“Tochacek”) (cited in an IDS), and US 3,138,841 (“Naimer”) (cited in an IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Dynic discloses a method for producing a touch-and-close fastener part (“The present invention is a hook that is planted on the male tape surface of a hook-and-loop fastener”), comprising at least the following steps:
producing a base structure (the base material sheet 6, Fig. 1);
heating the loop ends at a predetermined temperature and for a predetermined heating time until a head shape is produced as a thickening at the respective loop end under the surface tension of the plastics material (Fig. 1, “The front end of the monofilament 1 of the thermoplastic synthetic resin planted in the base material sheet 6 is heated and melted, and the peripheral wall thereof is bent and spread outward to form the side surface 4 of the head. The hook has a shape in which the tip peripheral wall is further bent and spread outward to form the lower spherical surface 3, and the spherical surface 2 is formed on the upper end of the lower spherical surface 3.”); and
forming the head shape with a convex upper side which, at the point of a linear transition, merges into a concave interlocking surface which is seamlessly transferred into the adjoining stem-like loop end (Fig. 1 and the annotated version of Fig. 1 provided below),
PNG
media_image1.png
432
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the head shape configured to be an interlocking element (Fig. 1, “A so-called hook-and-loop fastener is a male tape hook group, in which a large number of hooks are attached to a male tape hook surface, and a large number of loops are embedded in a female tape loop surface. Some of them are used by being locked in a group, but the locking rate, locking force, and peeling resistance depend on the shape of the hook of the male tape. The hook of the shape of the present invention has a good locking rate to the loop group, In a normal use state, it exerts a locking force that does not come off, and the peeling resistance is not so large, and an extremely well-balanced locking state is exhibited.”).
Dynic does not explicitly disclose that the base structure is produced from a thread system comprising individual loops or that at least a portion of the loops are cut to form stem-like loop ends. However, Dynic does discuss loops and cutting loops as part of forming hook-and-loop fasteners in the context of the prior art. See the section of Dynic labeled “Conventional technology”. Additionally, it is well known in the art to form stem-like structures by cutting loops in a base material. For example, see [0044] and Fig. 2 of Poulakis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have generated the monofilaments 1 of Dynic by cutting loops present in the base material sheet 6 since this is a well-known method for forming such structure when manufacturing a hook-and-loop fastener, as acknowledged by Dynic and as described in Poulakis.
Dynic does not disclose that the loops consist at least partially of a polyamide or polyester plastics material. In Dynic, the monofilament 1 is made of polypropylene (“The monofilament used in the present invention is, for example, 250 denier polypropylene, 300 denier polypropylene and the like are preferable.”).
Tochacek discloses that polypropylene and nylon provide different head shapes upon melting (Col. 2, Ln. 46 to Col. 3, Ln. 20), and Naimer discloses that the heating can be adjusted based on the selected polymer to produce the desired head space (Col. 3, Ln. 12-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the monofilament 1 of Dynic from a polyamide instead of polypropylene since it is known in the art to use such a material (Tochacek discloses the use of nylon) and selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07, particularly In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). While changing the material will affect the resulting head shape (Tochacek), it is known in the art that the heating can be adjusted to produce the desired head shape (Naimer), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the heating to ensure that Dynic’s desired head shape is still achieved.
Regarding claim 2, modified Dynic discloses that the base structure is formed from: a fabric of warp and weft threads into which individual pile threads are woven to form the loops (Fig. 1, [0041] of Poulakis).
Regarding claim 11, modified Dynic discloses that in the case of a symmetrical head shape in plan view, a circular region is formed by heating (Dynic describes the surface 2 as a “spherical” surface. Accordingly, it has a circular shape in plan view and also rotational symmetry.).
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dynic in view of Poulakis, Tochacek, and Naimer, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0277718 (“Arata”) (cited in an IDS).
Regarding claims 3-5, in Poulakis, the loops 22, 24 are cut through vertically at their apexes along a dividing line 26. See Fig. 2 and [0044]. Accordingly, while the loops are cut in a straight line and in a predetermined cutting plane, the loops are not cut through at a height between a lower region and an upper region, as required by each of claims 3-5. However, such an arrangement is well known in the art. For example, see Fig. 3 and [0072] of Arata.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the cutting arrangement of Arata to cut the loops in modified Dynic since Arata discloses suitable structure for this purpose. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and (B). This would result in the loops being cut through at a height between a lower region and an upper region, in a straight line, and in a predetermined cutting plane parallel to the base structure, as claimed.
With respect to the height of the cut (as recited in claims 4 and 5), see Fig. 3 of Arata. Additionally, [0073] of Arata discloses that the height at which the loops are cut is adjustable by moving a shear presentation beam 24 to provide relatively shorter or taller fibers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a cut height within each of the claimed ranges given what is shown in Fig. 3 of Arata and based on Arata’s teaching that the cut height can be adjusted depending on the desired fiber height.
Regarding claim 6, modified Dynic discloses that in the case of the straight-line cut through a region in which the fiber of a loop has a slight curvature up to the arcuate transition, a symmetrical head shape is formed by subsequent heating (Dynic, Poulakis, Tochacek, Naimer, and Arata all disclose head shapes that have at least one plane of symmetry).
Regarding claim 7, modified Dynic discloses that in order to obtain a symmetrical head shape, the straight cut is produced as a preform having a loop end in the form of a cylindrical stem (Dynic, Poulakis, Tochacek, Naimer, and Arata all disclose head shapes that have at least one plane of symmetry, with these heads being formed from cylindrical stems).
Regarding claim 8, modified Dynic discloses that the axial length of the respective preform is shortened by heating to form the respective head shape in the direction of the relevant final shape (This would necessarily occur as the material of Dynic’s monofilament 1 spreads outward to adopt the shape shown in Fig. 1. The increased width of the monofilament 1, relative to an initial cylinder, requires that material from its tip move downward and outward, thereby decreasing the height of the monofilament 1.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 16-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Each of claims 9 and 10 recites that the curvature on the convex upper side substantially corresponds to the curvature of the concave interlocking surface. Dynic does not disclose this feature (see Fig. 1), and there is nothing in the prior art to suggest such a modification. Claims 16-17 correspond to claims 9-10 except that they are in independent form. Accordingly, claims 16-17 also define over Dynic.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 DeRusso whose telephone number is (571)270-1287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00 AM-6:00 PM ET.
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, Sam Zhao, can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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 J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights