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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
Claims 1-19 are pending in the application, claims 9-19 are withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5 December 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 5 December 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner did not provide the unity-of-invention analysis as required by MPEP §1893.03(d), or articulate how examining the claims together would create a search or examination burden under MPEP §808.02. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the office action mailed 3 November 2025, particularly the section under numbered paragraph 3, contains and presents the proper analysis for the basis of the restriction requirement under unity-of-invention, wherein the common inventive feature --a polyethylene terephthalate-based woven hook-and-loop fastener which comprises, a woven base fabric having a multifilament yarn made of polyethylene terephthalate as a warp yarn and a polyester-based heat-fusible multifilament yarn as a weft yarn, wherein a monofilament yarn made of polyethylene terephthalate is woven in parallel with the warp yarn into the woven base fabric, a hook-shaped engaging element formed from the monofilament yarn and rising from the surface of the woven base fabric exists on the surface of the woven base fabric, and the hook-shaped engaging element is fixed to the woven base fabric by a melt of a heat-fusible component of the polyester-based heat-fusible multifilament yarn-- was not deemed to qualify as a special technical feature as it does not provide a contribution over the prior art because it is disclosed by Takayoshi et al. (JP 2015-062600 A) (figure 1, [0009], and [0032] of Takayoshi). Furthermore, the basis of the restriction requirement under unity-of-invention did not require or recite creating a search or examination burden. However, for the purposes of clarification Group I (claims 1-8) would be classified under A44B18/0023 and Group II (claims 9-19) would be classified under D03D27/06; wherein due to their separate classification a serious search burden would exist under MPEP §808.02.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification as filed recites --is 0.94 times or less the thickness of the woven fabric (Ts) at the position where the warp yarn floats most on the front surface side-- in paragraph [0096] of the filed specification. However, the filed specification recites --TS: Warp yarn thickness in woven base fabric thickness direction at the position where warp yarn floats most on the front surface side-- in paragraph [0193] and --a method for measuring (Tb) and (Ts) of the warp yarns-- in paragraph [0101]. Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the recitation in paragraph [0096] is a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "is 0.94 times or less the thickness of the warp yarn
The specification as filed recites --is 0.94 times or less the thickness of the woven fabric at a position where the warp yarn floats most on the front surface side-- in paragraph [0017] of the filed specification. However, the filed specification recites --TS: Warp yarn thickness in woven base fabric thickness direction at the position where warp yarn floats most on the front surface side-- in paragraph [0193] and --a method for measuring (Tb) and (Ts) of the warp yarns-- in paragraph [0101]. Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the recitation in paragraph [0017] is a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "is 0.94 times or less the thickness of the warp yarn .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
With Regards to Claim 4: Instant claim 4 recites the limitation --0.94 times or less the thickness of the woven base fabric at a position where the warp yarn floats most on the front surface side-- in lines 5 to 6, which appears to be a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "0.94 times or less a[[the]] thickness of the woven base fabric at a position where the warp yarn floats most on a[[the]] front surface side".
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
With Regards to Claim 4: Claim 4 recites the limitation "the front surface side" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated to read "a[[the]] front surface side".
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaikou et al. (US 2014/0230123 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Kaikou discloses a mixed hook/loop surface fastener (ref. "C") comprising hook fastener elements comprising monofilaments and loop fastener elements comprising multifilaments both on the same surface of a base fabric, wherein the monofilaments comprises a polyethylene terephthalate-based polyester resin, and the multifilaments comprises a polybutylene terephthalate-based polyester resin (figure 1 and [0028] of Kaikou). Kaikou also discloses ground weft yarns and ground warp yarns both forming the base fabric (ground weave), wherein the monofilaments for forming the hood fastener element of the mixed surface fastener are fed into the base fabric in parallel to the ground warp yarns, and wherein the hook fastener elements and loop fastener elements are anchored by fusion bonding to the ground weft yarns which form the base fabric ([0005], [0030], and [0059]-[0060] of Kaikou). Kaikou further discloses that the ground weft yarns can comprise sheath-core polyester fibers, wherein the melting point or softening point of the sheath component is preferably 100 to 200 °C, and 20 to 150 °C lower than the melting points of the ground warp yarn, the monofilament for the hook fastener elements, and the multifilament for the loop fastener element ([0069] of Kaikou). It is further disclosed by Kaikou that the ground warp yarn can be a polyethylene terephthalate with a melting point of 260 °C, but is not limited thereto ([0091]-[0093] of Kaikou). Specifically, Kaikou provides for --a polyethylene terephthalate-based woven hook-and-loop fastener which comprises, as a woven base fabric, a fabric having a multifilament yarn made of polyethylene terephthalate as a warp yarn and a polyester-based heat-fusible multifilament yarn as a weft yarn, wherein a monofilament yarn made of polyethylene terephthalate is woven in parallel with the warp yarn into the woven base fabric, a hook-shaped engaging element formed from the monofilament yarn and rising from the surface of the woven base fabric exists on the surface of the woven base fabric, and a root of the hook-shaped engaging element is fixed to the woven base fabric by a melt-solidified product of a heat-fusible component of the polyester-based heat-fusible multifilament yarn--.
Kaikou does not explicitly recite that --a melting peak temperature of the warp yarn by DSC measurement is in a range of 251.0 to 257.5°C--. However, in that Kaikou discloses that the heat-fusible component of the polyester-based heat-fusible multifilament yarn has a melting point or softening point of 100 to 200 °C, and that is 20 to 150 °C lower than the melting point of the PET multifilament warp yarn ([0069] of Kaikou). A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made could interpret the melting peak temperature of the warp yarn to range from 120°C [=100 °C + 20 °C] to 350 °C [= 150 °C + 200 °C]; which overlaps the presently claimed range of --251.0 to 257.5 °C--. Kaikou differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kaikou, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. (In the instant case, since Kaikou discloses that the warp yarn can be polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and have a melting point that overlaps the presently claimed range. It would have further been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected a multifilament warp yarn of PET with a melting peak temperature in the claimed range.)
Regarding Claim 4: Kaikou discloses that the woven base fabric satisfies that a thickness of the warp yarn in a woven base fabric thickness direction at a position where the warp yarn, which floats and sinks above and below the weft yarn with the weft yarn interposed therebetween, sinks most on a back surface side is 0.94 times or less the thickness of the woven base fabric at a position where the warp yarn floats most on a front surface side ([0030] and [0060] of Kaikou). (In the instant case, Kaikou discloses that the ground warp yarns and the ground weft yarns are woven to form the base fabric, which would be well-known to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to mean that the total thickness of the woven base fabric would be at least the combined thickness of the warp yarn and the weft yarn; wherein the thickness of the warp yarn to the thickness of the base fabric (assuming a standard weave and that the weft yarn and warp yarn have the same thickness) could be about 0.5; which would anticipate the claimed range of --0.94 times or less--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).)
Regarding Claim 5: Kaikou discloses the claimed polyethylene terephthalate-based woven hook-and-loop fastener, but does not explicitly recite --a degree of exhaustion is in a range of 95 to 97%--. However, the fastener of Kaikou uses the same material and has the same structure as applicant's invention (i.e., a polyethylene terephthalate-based woven hook-and-loop fastener which comprises, as a woven base fabric, a fabric having a multifilament yarn made of polyethylene terephthalate as a warp yarn and a polyester-based heat-fusible multifilament yarn as a weft yarn, wherein a monofilament yarn made of polyethylene terephthalate is woven in parallel with the warp yarn into the woven base fabric, a hook-shaped engaging element formed from the monofilament yarn and rising from the surface of the woven base fabric exists on the surface of the woven base fabric, and a root of the hook-shaped engaging element is fixed to the woven base fabric by a melt-solidified product of a heat-fusible component of the polyester-based heat-fusible multifilament yarn, wherein a melting peak temperature of the warp yarn by DSC measurement is in a range of 251.0 to 257.5°C; see (figure 1, [0005], [0028], [0030], [0059]-[0060], [0069], and [0091]-[0093]) of Kaikou and ([0016], [0037]-[0040]) of the filed instant specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the polyethylene terephthalate-based woven hook-and-loop fastener of Kaikou inherently possesses a degree of exhaustion in a range of 95 to 97%. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 7: Kaikou disclose that the surface of the woven base fabric, a loop-shaped engaging element formed from a polyester-based multifilament yarn and rising from the surface of the woven base fabric coexists on the same surface as the hook-shaped engaging element, a root of the loop-shaped engaging element is fixed to the woven base fabric by a melt-solidified product of a heat-fusible component of the heat-fusible multifilament yarn, and the multifilament yarn for loop-shaped engaging elements is a yarn made of polybutylene terephthalate (figure 1 and [0028] of Kaikou).
Regarding Claim 8: Kaikou disclose a dyed polyethylene terephthalate-based woven hook-and-loop fastener obtained by dyeing the polyethylene terephthalate-based woven hook-and-loop fastener with a disperse dye ([0081] of Kaikou). (In the instant case, the limitation of claim 8 has been considered by the examiner to be a "product-by-process" claim, wherein only the structure implied by the process steps are considered (i.e., that the fastener is dyed). MPEP §2113 recites, "[E]ven 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. 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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaikou et al. (US 2014/0230123 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Masahiko (JP 2002-233408 A).
Kaikou is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 6: Kaikou fails to disclose --the warp yarn is a yarn made of polyethylene terephthalate recovered from a polyethylene terephthalate bottle--.
Masahiko discloses a backpack constructed using fabric made from recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle yarn, recycled yarn made from PET bottles ([0005], [0011], [0012], [0016], [0025], [0028], [0039] of Masahiko).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the recycled PET bottle yarn with the multifilament PET warp yarn of Kaikou in order to have --the warp yarn be a yarn made of polyethylene terephthalate recovered from a polyethylene terephthalate bottle--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the recycled PET bottle yarn with the multifilament PET warp yarn of Kaikou, from the stand-point of using materials that take environmental protection into consideration ([0002] and [0039] of Masahiko). (In the instant case, Masahiko discloses fabrics made from PET yarn, formed by recycling PET bottles into PET yarn, wherein it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to have selected the recycled PET bottle yarn as the multifilament PET warp yarn of Kaikou, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (i.e., a fabric comprising PET yarns). See MPEP §2144.07.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to the closest prior art of record Kaikou et al. (US 2014/0230123 A1): Kaikou teaches --a polyethylene terephthalate-based woven hook-and-loop fastener--, wherein Kaikou's polyethylene terephthalate-based woven hook-and-loop fastener further comprises the structure --a mixed hook/loop surface fastener (ref. "C") comprising hook fastener elements comprising monofilaments and loop fastener elements comprising multifilaments both on the same surface of a base fabric, wherein the monofilaments comprises a polyethylene terephthalate-based polyester resin, and the multifilaments comprises a polybutylene terephthalate-based polyester resin; ground weft yarns and ground warp yarns both forming the base fabric (ground weave), wherein the monofilaments for forming the hood fastener element of the mixed surface fastener are fed into the base fabric in parallel to the ground warp yarns, and wherein the hook fastener elements and loop fastener elements are anchored by fusion bonding to the ground weft yarns which form the base fabric; that the ground weft yarns can comprise sheath-core polyester fibers, wherein the melting point or softening point of the sheath component is preferably 100 to 200 °C, and 20 to 150 °C lower than the melting points of the ground warp yarn, the monofilament for the hook fastener elements, and the multifilament for the loop fastener element; and that the ground warp yarn can be a polyethylene terephthalate with a melting point of 260 °C, but is not limited thereto-- (figure 1, [0005], [0028], [0030], [0059]-[0060], [0069], and [0091]-[0093] of Kaikou). However, Kaikou does not teach that --a molecular weight distribution (Mw/Mn) of the polyethylene terephthalate constituting the warp yarn is in a range of 4.0 to 4.5-- {instant claim 2} or --a melting peak temperature of the monofilament yarn by DSC measurement is in a range of 251.0 to 257.5°C, and a molecular weight distribution (Mw/Mn) of the polyethylene terephthalate constituting the monofilament yarn is in a range of 3.8 to 4.7-- {instant claim 3}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Kaikou with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Kaikou in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781