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 § 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, 5, 7-9 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webster (US 2004/0210167) in view of Honeycutt et al. (US 5,885,907).
Regarding claim 1, Webster discloses an apparatus comprising a substrate and a plurality of male-type engaging elements protruding from the surface of the substrate (Paragraph 50, lines 7-10 describe a water-soluble hook material fastener), wherein the substrate and the male-type engaging elements both contain a polyvinyl alcohol-based resin (Paragraph 21, line 5 includes PVA as water soluble component), and the substrate and the male-type engaging elements are both soluble in hot water at a water temperature of 45 to 90°C but are not soluble in water at a water temperature of lower than 45°C (Paragraph 85, lines 7-10 describe wherein an aqueous bath sufficiently hot in the claimed ranges allows for the material to become soluble. Further description is provided wherein the solubility begins at 50°, 75° and 60°),
Webster fails to explicitly specify wherein both the substrate and the male-type engaging elements are made of the polyvinyl alcohol-based resin having a polymerization degree in a range of 300 to 700 and a saponification degree in a range of 80 to 99 mol%.
Honeycutt et al. teaches a degree of polymerization between 300-700 (Column 6, Lines 61-64) and a saponification in a range of 80-99 mol% (Column 7, lines 1-6).
From this teaching of Honeycutt et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to select the soluble thread of Webster with polymerization between 300-700 and saponification in a range of 80-99% to achieve the desired solubility, maximized strength, and degree of intermolecular bonds.
Regarding claims 5, 7 and 8, Webster discloses the invention except for wherein the substrate and the male-type engaging elements are made of a resin composition in which a polyhydric alcohol or an ethylene oxide- based polymer is added to the polyvinyl alcohol-based resin in an amount of 5 to 45 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the polyvinyl alcohol-based resin; wherein the substrate and the male-type engaging elements are made of a resin composition in which layered inorganic particles are added to the polyvinyl alcohol-based resin in an amount of 4 to 25 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the polyvinyl alcohol-based resin; wherein the polyhydric alcohol or the ethylene oxide-based polymer is polyethylene glycol, and has a number-average molecular weight in a range of 300 to 700; wherein the layered inorganic particles are talc. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ranges of values 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 and 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 9, Webster further discloses a hot water-soluble loop type hook-and-loop fastener composed of a loop fiber (Paragraph 50, line 9) containing a polyvinyl alcohol-based resin that is soluble in hot water at a water temperature of 45 to 90°C but is not soluble in water at a water temperature of lower than 45°C (Paragraph 85, lines 7-10 describe wherein an aqueous bath sufficiently hot in the claimed ranges allows for the material to become soluble).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Honeycutt et al. further teach wherein both the substrate and the male-type engaging elements are made of the polyvinyl alcohol-based resin having a polymerization degree in a range of 330 to 600 and 340 to 550 (Column 6, Lines 61-64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ranges of values 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, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, wherein both the substrate and the male-type engaging elements are made of the polyvinyl alcohol-based resin having a saponification degree of 90 to 98.5 mol% and 93 to mol% (Column 7, lines 1-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ranges of values 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, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 2, 6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Webster and Honeycutt et al. as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Takizawa et al. (US 5,985,406).
Regarding claim 2, Webster discloses the invention except for wherein the plurality of male-type engaging elements are arranged in a row, and each of the male-type engaging elements has a shape rising from the surface of the substrate, bending in the row direction from the middle thereof, and having a tip end portion facing a direction approaching the surface of the substrate, or a shape rising from the surface of the substrate, bending in the row direction by being divided into front and back in the row direction in the middle, thereof and having divided tip end portions facing a direction approaching the surface of the substrate.
Takizawa et al. teach the arrangement and structure of the hooks (Fig. 1 as shown).
From this teaching of Takizawa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the hook elements in the claimed manner and shape to maximize engagement with loop elements.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Webster and Takizawa et al. fail to disclose wherein the height from the surface of the substrate to the top portion of each of the male-type engaging elements is 1.2 mm or less when each of the male-type engaging elements has a shape rising from the surface of the substrate, bending in the row direction from a middle portion thereof, and having a tip end portion facing a direction approaching the surface of the substrate, and wherein the height from the surface of the substrate to the top portion of each of the male-type engaging elements is 0.6 mm or less when each of the male-type engaging elements has a shape rising from the surface of the substrate, bending in the row direction by being divided into front and back in the row direction, and having divided tip end portions facing a direction approaching the surface of the substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ranges of values 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, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, Webster discloses the invention except for wherein the hot water-soluble loop type hook-and-loop fastener has a nonwoven fabric or a woven or knitted fabric as a base fabric, and loop fibers are present on the surfaces of the base fabric.
Takizawa et al. teach woven fabric with loop fibers (Fig. 5 as shown).
From this teaching of Takizawa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the loop fibers in the claimed manner since the claimed arrangement maximizes the integrity of the loop elements with the base material to prevent damage of the loop elements or tear out during use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant suggests Webster fails to describe water insolubility in water below the claimed temperatures. However, this appears to be a mischaracterization of the language used in Webster. Instead, several times Webster suggests solubility beginning at the threshold temperatures. Paragraph 9 describes dissolving at a temperature greater than about 37°. Paragraph 20 further defines “water-soluble” as “components having a degree of solubility in water”. The additional range thresholds are repeated throughout the disclosure. Applicant’s reading of lack of insolubility below these thresholds does not appear to align with the logic and language as used.
Applicant’s remarks regarding reuse in Webster are also not persuasive. Webster includes temperature thresholds inclusive of Applicant’s 45°C threshold as well as listing a variety of materials to achieve these thresholds. Applicant’s new claim language and arguments regarding saponification and polymerization have been addressed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892.
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 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