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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1 December 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 and 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 6 and 7 of claim 1, “predeterminable” should be replaced with “predetermined”.
In lines 2-3 of claim 2, “to form loops” should be replaced with “to form the loops” for consistency with claim 1.
In claims 3-5, a comma should be inserted before “in a straight line”.
In claims 3-5, “predeterminable” should be replaced with “predetermined”.
In claims 9-10, “for a head shape” should be replaced with “with a head shape”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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 1-11 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.
The last line of claim 1 includes the language “for an interlocking element”. It is unclear what is meant by this language. For purposes of examination, claim 1 is being interpreted as specifying that the recited head shape, in combination with the adjoining loop stem, results in the creation of an interlocking element. Claims 2-11 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the straight cut” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 depends from claim 1, which refers to cutting at least a portion of the loops. However, claim 1 does not describe this cutting as “straight”. Note that claims 3-5 do refer to cutting “in a straight line”. For purposes of examination, claim 7 is being interpreted as reciting “a straight cut” in line 2. Claim 8 is rejected based on its dependency from claim 7. Note the rejection of claim 8 immediately below.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the respective preform” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 depends from claim 1, which does not refer to any preforms. For purposes of examination, claim 8 is being interpreted as depending from claim 7.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “the symmetrical head shape in plan view” in lines 1-2 and “the asymmetrical head shape in plan view” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 11 depends from claim 1, which describes the head shape but does not describe it as being symmetrical or asymmetrical. Note that claims 6-7 do refer to symmetrical and asymmetrical head shapes. For purposes of examination, claim 11 is being interpreted as reciting “a symmetrical head shape in plan view” and “an asymmetrical head shape in plan view” instead.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, claim 11 is being interpreted as though the text “, in particular, in the manner of an ellipse,” were omitted.
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, 7-8, 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 predeterminable temperature and for a predeterminable 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 for an interlocking element (Fig. 1 and the annotated version of Fig. 1 provided below).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 loops (Fig. 1, [0041] of Poulakis).
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, and Naimer 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.).
Regarding claim 11, modified Dynic discloses that in the case of the 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 3-6 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, see Figs. 1-3 of US 8,388,880 (“Tuma”), Figs. 1-4 of US 3,770,359 (“Hamano”), and Figs. 1-2 and 4-5 of US 3,673,301 (“Billarant”).
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