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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 14-20 in the reply filed on 06/11/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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 18 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.
Claim 18 recites “the frangible zone” it is unclear if only a single frangible zone or the frangible zone of each of the frangible tabs (e.g., all frangible zones) require the further limitations recited in claim 18.
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 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colyn et al. (US 2022/0333635) and further in view of Shelton et al. (US 2007/0264103).
Regarding claim 14, Colyn discloses frangible cap strip (10; Fig. 2), comprising a plurality of continuous roll-molded fastening caps (20) arranged consecutively along the strip and spaced apart from one another (Fig. 2, 0102).
A plurality of frangible tabs (50), configured to join adjacent fastening caps and to extend along a first axis extending through a center of each of the caps along the cap strip (Fig. 2).
The tabs comprising a frangible zone (0013), comprising a depression (thinned region 53), shear line and a divot disposed at the shear line (Fig. 4-6, 0073). The tab containing a first tab portion formed between the divot and the first one of the pair of adjacent fastening caps and a second tab portion formed between the divot and the second one of the pair of adjacent fastening caps, the depression disposed in the second tab portion (Fig. 4).
Colyn does not teach the divot being closer along the first axis to a first one of a pair of adjacent fastening caps than to a second one of the pair of fastening caps.
Shelton, in the analogous field of fastener assemblies with frangible zones (0016), teaches a strip comprising a weakened region (0076). The weakened region comprising notches (30a and 30b) where the notches are closer to one pair of adjacent nails than to a second one of the pair of adjacent nails (Fig. 8B).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the divot in the frangible zone of Colyn to be disposed closer along the first axis to a first one of the pair of adjacent fastening caps than to a second one of the pair of adjacent fastening caps, as taught by Shelton, as having a larger remaining portion of the connection portion can help reduce debris generation (0076).
Please note, claim 14 includes product by process language with regards to the recitation of “roll-molded”. The above arguments establish a rationale tending to show the claimed product is the same as what is taught by the prior art. “[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, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 15, Colyn teaches the depression of each frangible tab extending below a medial place defined by a bottom side of each of the fastening caps (Fig. 6, 0073).
Regarding claim 16, Colyn teaches the depressions of each of the fabs being substantially T-shaped (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 17, as Colyn in view of Shelton teach the tab structure as claimed the second tab portion would be configured to form a hinge configured to increase compression and prevent invention of the fastening cap from overshooting or overpressing the fastening cap down onto a working surface.
Regarding claim 18, Colyn teaches the frangible zone comprises a thermoplastic material (0065). Colyn teaches that the strips may be formed via injection/co-extrusion molding in the general direction of the first axis which would cause molecular alignment in the thermoplastic material along the general direction of the first axis (i.e., flow direction; 0092-0093, 0101).
Colyn does not teach that the molecular alignment is integrated into the material through calendering with continuous roll molds however, claim 18 includes product by process language with regards to the recitation of “calendering with continuous roll molds”. The above arguments establish a rationale tending to show the claimed product is the same as what is taught by the prior art. “[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, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 19, Colyn teaches an embodiment where the strip is not injection molded (0101).
Please note, claim 19 includes product by process language with regards to the recitation of “injection molded”. The above arguments establish a rationale tending to show the claimed product is the same as what is taught by the prior art. “[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, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 20, Colyn teaches each fastening cap having a top and bottom opposing sides with each bottom side comprising at least one depression having a circular shape (Fig. 5, 0066).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colyn in view of Shelton as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Kline et al. (US 2008/0111275).
Regarding claim 18, Colyn in view of Shelton disclose the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above. While the processes of Colyn are expected to result in molecular alignment of the thermoplastic material as discussed above, Colyn does not expressly teach molecular alignment through calendering with continuous roll molds.
Kline, in the analogous field of frangible connected strip caps (0004) teaches a method of for making a strip component from thermoplastic material including where the extrudate is calendered through a pair of rollers to thin the material (0077, Fig. 5A).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the frangible zones of Colyn to be calendered through a pair of rollers, as taught by Kline, as a way to thin the material (0077).
Given the prior art teaches the method of calendering with continuous roll molds, the thermoplastic material will have a molecular alignment integrated into the material as claimed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights