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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 October 2025 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuhara (US 2018/0360170).
Regarding claim 1, Fukuhara discloses an apparatus comprising: a thin-plate-shaped base portion (10) and a plurality of engaging elements (20) provided on the base portion, each of the engaging elements including a stem portion (21) that protrudes upward from the base portion, and an engaging head portion (22) that is formed on an upper end portion of the stem portion,
wherein, in plan view seen from above the engaging elements, when an area of the engaging head portion of one of the engaging elements is defined as a head portion area, the head portion area of each of the engaging elements is 22000 µm2 or greater and 38000 µm2 or less (Paragraph 129 discloses a diameter of the head is set at 0.2-0.6mm providing a range of 31,416µm2 – 282,743. µm2),
wherein a plurality of element rows in which the plurality of engaging elements are arrayed along a first direction are provided (Fig. 1 as shown),
wherein, when a distance between the engaging head portions of the engaging elements that are adjacent to each other in the first direction is defined as a first head- portion-to-head-portion distance and a distance between the engaging head portions of the element rows that are adjacent to each other in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction is defined as a second head-portion-to-head-portion distance (Fig. 1 as shown),
wherein an arrangement of the engaging elements includes a parallel arrangement in which the engaging elements of each of the element rows are arrayed at a fixed first pitch along the first direction, the plurality of element rows are arrayed at a fixed second pitch along the second direction, and the engaging elements are arrayed along the second direction in two of the element rows that are adjacent to each other in the second direction (Fig. 1 as shown), and
wherein, in the engaging elements, when a direction that is orthogonal to a height direction of the engaging elements is defined as a horizontal direction, a dimension of each boundary portions (24) in the horizontal direction is 127 µm or greater (Paragraph 130 last 4 lines describe wherein the boundary portion is between 100 µm and 500 µm), each of the boundary portions being provided between the stem portion corresponding thereto and the engaging head portion corresponding thereto (Fig. 1 as shown)
Fukuhara et al. fails to specify at least one of the first head-portion-to-head-portion distance and the second head-portion-to-head portion distance is 200 µm or greater, and the first head-portion-to-head-portion distance and the second head-portion-to-head-portion distance are 430 µm or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the fasteners of Fukuhara et al. with the claimed ranges 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Fukuhara discloses an apparatus made of synthetic resin and comprising: a thin-plate-shaped base portion (10) and a plurality of engaging elements (20) provided on the base portion, each of the engaging elements including a stem portion (21) that protrudes upward from the base portion, and an engaging head portion (22) that is formed on an upper end portion of the stem portion,
wherein, in plan view seen from above the engaging elements, when an area of the engaging head portion of one of the engaging elements is defined as a head portion area, the head portion area of each of the engaging elements is 22000 µm2 or greater and 38000 µm2 or less (Paragraph 129 discloses a diameter of the head is set at 0.2-0.6mm providing a range of 31,416µm2 – 282,743. µm2),
wherein a plurality of element rows in which the plurality of engaging elements are arrayed along a first direction are provided (Fig. 1 as shown),
wherein, when a distance between the engaging head portions of the engaging elements that are adjacent to each other in the first direction is defined as a first head- portion-to-head-portion distance and a distance between the engaging head portions of the element rows that are adjacent to each other in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction is defined as a second head-portion-to-head-portion distance (Fig. 1 as shown),
wherein the plurality of engaging elements are arrayed at a fixed first pitch along the first direction (Fig. 1 as shown),
wherein the plurality of element rows are arrayed at a fixed second pitch along the second direction (Fig. 1 as shown),
wherein the fixed first pitch and the fixed second pitch are substantially equal to each other (Fig. 1 as shown),
wherein, in the engaging elements, when a direction that is orthogonal to a height direction of the engaging elements is defined as a horizontal direction (Fig. 1 as shown), a dimension of each boundary portions (24) in the horizontal direction is 127 µm or greater (Paragraph 130 last 4 lines describe wherein the boundary portion is between 100 µm and 500 µm), each of the boundary portions being provided between the stem portion corresponding thereto and the engaging head portion corresponding thereto, and wherein a maximum value of a dimension in the second direction of each of the engaging head portions in the plan view is 223 µm or less (Paragraph 129 discloses a diameter of the head is set at 0.2-0.6mm).
Fukuhara et al. fails to specify at least one of the first head-portion-to-head-portion distance and the second head-portion-to-head portion distance is 200 µm or greater, and the first head-portion-to-head-portion distance and the second head-portion-to-head-portion distance are 430 µm or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the fasteners of Fukuhara et al. with the claimed ranges 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Fukuhara further discloses wherein at least one pawl portion (23) is provided in a protruding manner on an outer peripheral edge portion of the engaging head portion of each of the engaging elements, and wherein the at least one pawl portion has a pawl width (F) that is smaller than a dimension of a boundary portion (24) in a direction orthogonal to a height direction, the boundary portion being provided between the stem portion corresponding thereto and the engaging head portion corresponding thereto (Figs. 3 and 4 as shown).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Fukuhara further discloses wherein, when the engaging elements are seen in a direction orthogonal to a height direction of the engaging elements, the at least one pawl portion has a pawl upper surface (22c) that faces upward and a pawl lower surface (22b) that is disposed on a side opposite to the pawl upper surface, and the pawl lower surface has a drooping form in which a tip end portion of the pawl lower surface is disposed lower than a base end portion of the pawl lower surface in the height direction (Fig. 4 as shown).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 6:
Applicant argues Fukuhara does not disclose head-portion-to-head-portion distance ranges or their relationship with the other parameters, ranges, peel and shear strength. Applicant further discusses the criticality of the dimensions as far as allowing easy insertion of a loop or fiber of a female surface fastener between the engagement elements presumably without sacrificing peel and shear strength. It is unclear how these parameters and ranges are optimized when Applicant has failed to claim or disclose the features/dimensions of the mating element. Shear and peel strength would appear to be also dependent upon the specifics of the female element. Claiming the combination of features optimized for mating with an unknown female element appears to be at least incomplete. Applicant has failed to establish the independence of the claimed parameters of the male fastener on the desired features of shear and peel strength that could perhaps help establish their criticality.
Applicant notes, “a comparison of Example 4 with Reference Example 1 illustrates how small deviations from the claimed parameters result in significantly lower peel strength.” It is unclear how these results are unexpected. It would be expected that dimensions of the male fastener that properly matched the dimensions of the female fastener would result in optimized peel and shear strength and small deviations from matching dimensions would certainly result in significantly lower strength measurements. The criticality of the ranges is also not clearly established in Applicant’s experiments. Applicant notes the reference examples adjust one parameter out of the desired ranges at a time. However, since the other within range parameters are not held constant, a clear connection between the criticality of each range is not clearly shown or established.
Regarding claims 4, 7 and 8:
Examiner’s concerns regarding criticality raised above are also present here. Applicant is claiming ranges in isolation of the mating structure and without a clear establishment of the criticality of the ranges that establishes the supposed unexpected results.
Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 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.
/M.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677