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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 combines the hermaphroditic connection system of claim 15 with closure elements that consist of loop-shaped threads. Claim 17 further requires a lateral cut at the head end of the loop-shaped threads. However, the only hermaphroditic connection system described in the specification is a mushroom-to-mushroom connection (paragraph [0021]). Every other disclosure of loop-shaped thread closure elements (20) describes a complementary engagement. For example, the loop-shaped elements (20) of the closure part (18) engage hook-like elements (22) of the further closure part (24), and the hook-like elements (22) are formed by laterally cutting the loops ([0029]-[0030]; figure 1).
The specification therefore does not disclose loop-shaped thread closure elements, cut or uncut, forming a hermaphroditic connection system. Selecting the hermaphroditic arrangement from paragraph [0021] and combining it with the loop-thread elements of paragraphs [0029]-[0030] is a combination for which the original disclosure has failed to provide support for.
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 9, 11-12, and 17 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the groups of fastening elements" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that the groups are introduced in claim 8 but claim 9 depends from claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the groups of fastening elements" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that the groups are introduced in claim 8 but claim 11 depends from claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the recitation that the closure elements “consist of hooks, double hooks, mushrooms, loops, stems, multifilaments, and flocking fibers” has rendered the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether every closure element must consist of all the listed structures, which is not possible, or whether the list has set forth alternatives. For examination, the list has been interpreted as alternatives.
Regarding claim 17, the “or” alternative in line 2 has rendered the claim indefinite because it covers a lateral cut in the closure elements of only one of the two closure parts. Under this alternative, the closure elements of the closure part would be cut, open hook structures and the closure elements of the further closure part would be closed loops. Thus, contradicting the requirement of parent claim 15 wherein the closure elements of both parts are “the same structures” forming a hermaphroditic connection system. For examination, claim 17 is interpreted as requiring the lateral cut in the closure elements of both closure parts.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straumann, US 2019/0040283 in view of Poulakis, US 2009/0036013 (hereinafter Poulakis ‘013).
Regarding claim 1, Straumann discloses a connection system, consisting essentially of: a fastening part (4; nanostructured side of gecko tape 2) that has at least one carrier part (base of tape 2 from which the nanostructures extend) with a plurality of stem-like fastening elements (elastic hair elements of the gecko nanostructures) connected thereto in one piece (see figures 1 and 3), wherein a head part (distal ends of the elastic hair elements; the head part of the fastening elements) of each of the plurality of stem-like fastening elements (elastic hair) [are configured to be fastened at their free end faces by means of Van der Waals force adhesion (paragraph [0016]; “van der Waals intermolecular forces”) to third-party components (10) in a releasable manner]; and a flexible closure part (6; non-structured side carried on a flexible carrier), wherein the closure part (6) is firmly connected to the fastening part (4) on an opposite side to the plurality of stem-like fastening elements (figure 3), the closure part (6) has closure elements (14) which, when brought into engagement with further, correspondingly designed closure elements (16) of a further closure part (12), form a releasable fastening closure (paragraphs [0022]-[0024]).
Straumann does not explicitly disclose a flexible further closure part, wherein the further closure part, on its side opposite the further closure elements, includes an adhesive [that is configured to be fastened to a functional component with the adhesive]. Straumann’s further closure part (12) is not flexible.
Poulakis ‘013 teaches a flexible further closure part (14) having closure elements (18), the further closure part (14), on its side opposite the further closure elements (18; loops, hooks, or mushroom-like elements in paragraph [0017]), includes an adhesive (30; figure 2) [that is configured to be fastened to a functional component (32) with the adhesive (30)]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill it the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the further closure part of Straumann to make it a flexible closure strip that includes, on its side opposite the further closure elements, an adhesive as taught by Poulakis ‘013, with the non-flexible object (12) of Straumann serving as the functional component to which the strip is adhered, in order to apply the correspondingly designed counterpart closure elements to an existing rigid object without forming the counterparts (16) as recesses in the object itself. The adhesive also provides a good connection of the closure to outside parts. The rigidity relied upon by Straumann (paragraph [0022]) continues to be supplied by the object (12) to which the flexible strip is bonded.
Claim language set in brackets [] set forth above and below in this office action are considered by the examiner to be intended use that fails to further limit the structure of the claimed invention. Since the claimed invention is directed solely to that of the connection system, the prior art must only be capable of performing the functional recitations in order to be applicable, and in the instant case, the examiner maintains that the reusable system taught by the combination of Straumann (US 2019/0040283) and Poulakis ‘013 (US 2009/0036013) or Poulakis (2005/0268439), is indeed capable of the intended use statements. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Straumann and Poulakis ‘013 teaches the connection system according to claim 1. Straumann further discloses wherein, between the fastening part (4) and the closure part (6), at least one layer (see a solid line between elements 4 and 6; see paragraph [0021] regarding a flexible carrier so that the tape 2 can be bonded to the flexible carrier) is configured to be inserted and consists of a flexible, inelastic material (e.g. a sheet of polymers), wherein it is a component, [designed as a further carrier part], of the fastening part (4).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Straumann and Poulakis ‘013 teaches the connection system according to claim 1. Straumann further discloses wherein the fastening part (4) with its components (nanostructures), [for adhering to curved surfaces of the associated third-party component], is designed as a flexible component (tape 2 is flexible).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Straumann and Poulakis ‘013 teaches the connection system according to claim 1. Straumann further discloses wherein the fastening part (4) and the closure part (6) consist of translucent plastic materials (a polymer material is translucent).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Straumann and Poulakis ‘013 teaches the connection system according to claim 1. Straumann further discloses wherein the fastening elements of the fastening part (4), arranged in groups (when covered partly of the surface; paragraph [0016] discloses the side 4 “maybe be covered partly”), leave spaces between them, which lead to a visually recognizable segmentation (when the partly covered side 4 is considered).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, the combination of Straumann and Poulakis ‘013 teaches the connection system according to claim 1. Straumann further discloses [wherein the spaces left free between the groups of fastening elements (regions of side 4 not covered with nanostructures) are used to accommodate functional components, such as electronic components, magnets, and imprints].
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Straumann and Poulakis ‘013 teaches the connection system according to claim 1. Straumann further discloses [wherein the closure elements (14) of at least one closure part (6), arranged in groups (of hook elements; figure 2), leave spaces between them, which lead to a visually recognizable segmentation].
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, the combination of Straumann and Poulakis ‘013 teaches the connection system according to claim 1. Straumann further discloses [wherein the spaces left free between the groups of closure elements (14) are used to accommodate functional components, such as electronic components, magnets, and imprints].
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, the combination of Straumann and Poulakis ‘013 teaches the connection system according to claim 1. Straumann further discloses wherein the closure elements (14) of the closure parts consist of hooks (14a), double hooks, mushrooms, loops, stems, multifilaments, and flocking fibers (or any other suitable structure that may mechanically couple with attachment counterparts).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straumann, US 2019/0040283 in view of Poulakis, US 2005/0268439 (hereinafter Poulakis ‘439).
Regarding claim 13, Straumann discloses a connection system, consisting essentially of: a fastening part (4) that has at least one carrier part (2) with a plurality of stem-like fastening elements (elastic hair elements of the gecko nanostructures) connected thereto in one piece (figures 1 and 3), wherein a head part (distal ends of the elastic hair elements; the head part of the fastening elements) of each of the plurality of stem-like fastening elements (elastic hair) [are configured to be fastened at their free end faces by means of Van der Waals force adhesion (paragraph [0016]) to third-party components (10) in a releasable manner]; and a releasable fastening structure including a flexible closure part (6; flexible carrier) that is firmly connected to the fastening part (4) on an opposite side to the plurality of stem-like fastening elements (figure 3), the closure part (6) having closure elements (14), [which, when brought into engagement with further, correspondingly designed closure elements (16) of a further closure part (12), form a releasable fastening closure].
Straumann does not explicitly disclose a flexible further closure part and wherein the closure elements (14) consist of loop-shaped threads formed from continuous textile fibers anchored in the closure part and the further closure part and extending outward in loop configurations. However, Straumann has disclosed that the closure elements (14) can be of any suitable structure that may mechanically couple with attachment counterparts.
Poulakis ‘439 teaches closure elements (18) consisting of loop-shaped threads (the part 14 is comprised of filaments 16 as pile threads; see figure 2) formed from continuous textile fibers (see paragraph [0002] for “functional filaments of which may consist of textile fibers”) anchored in a flexible closure part (woven base fabric 14) and extending outward in looped configurations (figure 2), wherein the woven construction provides each of the mating fastener portions, and the multifilament threads form the loop-like elements of one portion whose loops are cut open form the fastener hooks that engage the loop material of the other fastening element ([0002]). The loops (22, 24) may be left closed or cut open for this purpose, including in combined fasteners having hook-shaped and loop-shaped elements on a common base fabric 14 ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the closure part and the further closure part of Straumann to each be a flexible woven base fabric having closure elements consisting of loop-shaped threads formed from continuous textile fibers anchored in the closure parts and extending outward in loop configurations, as taught by Poulakis ‘439, in order to produce both mating parts of the releasable fastening closure by the same cost-effective weaving process, with higher adherence and peeling resistance values (Poulakis ‘439 paragraphs [0002]-[0006] and [0020]). Straumann has previously disclosed flexible attachment structures on a flexible carrier and any suitable mechanical coupling (paragraphs [0021]-[0026] and [0030]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Straumann and Poulakis ‘439 teaches the connection system of according to claim 13. Poulakis ‘439 further teaches wherein at least some of the closure elements (18) of the further closure part and/or the closure elements of the closure part (14) include a cut laterally at a head end of the loop-shaped thread (see figure 1 and paragraph [0017]; cutting the loops 22, 24 open to produce a fastener hook which may engaging corresponding nonwoven or fleece material of another fastening element not shown).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straumann, US 2019/0040283 in view of Suh, US 2011/0271497.
Regarding claim 15, Straumann discloses a connection system, consisting essentially of: a fastening part (4) that has at least one carrier part (base of tape 2) with a plurality of stem-like fastening elements (elastic hair elements of the gecko nanostructures) connected thereto in one piece (figures 1 and 3), wherein a head part (distal ends of the elastic hair elements; the head part of the fastening elements) of each of the plurality of stem-like fastening elements (elastic hair) [are configured to be fastened at their free end faces by means of Van der Waals force adhesion (paragraph [0016]) to third-party components (10) in a releasable manner]; and a releasable fastening closure including a flexible closure part (6; flexible carrier) that is firmly connected to the fastening part (4) on an opposite side to the plurality of stem-like fastening elements (figure 3), the closure part (6) having closure elements (14), [which, when brought into engagement with further, correspondingly designed closure elements (16) of a flexible further closure part (12), form the releasable fastening closure].
Straumann does not explicitly disclose wherein the closure elements of the closure part and the closure elements of the further closure part are the same structures being a hermaphroditic connection system configured to engage with each other. Rather, the closure elements (14, 16) are complementary mating pairs instead of identical structures.
Suh teaches a flexible further closure part (210), wherein the closure elements (120) of the closure part (110) and the closure elements (220) of the further closure part (210) are the same structures (same shape and same diameter; same polymer) being a hermaphroditic connection system ([0027]) configured to engage with each other (figures 2-3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the closure part and the further closure part of Straumann to be flexible members whose closure elements are the same structures being a hermaphroditic connection system configured to engage with each other, as taught by Suh, in order to manufacture a single part type for both sides of the fastening closure while providing superior adhesion.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straumann, US 2019/0040283 in view of Suh, US 2011/0271497 as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Poulakis, US 2005/0268439 (Poulakis ‘439).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Straumann and Suh teaches the connection system according to claim 15. The combination does not expressly teach wherein the closure elements consist of loop-shaped threads; however, Straumann has disclosed the closure elements (14) can be of any suitable structure that may mechanically couple with attachment counterparts. Poulakis ‘439 teaches a closure part (14) having closure elements (18) wherein the closure elements (18) consist of loop-shaped threads (the part 14 is comprised of filaments 16 as pile threads and having loops 22, 24; see figure 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further substitute the closure elements of the combination of Straumann and Suh with the closure elements shape consisting of loop-shaped threads as taught by Poulakis ‘439 to provide an alternative closure element shape for purpose of peel strength and abrasion reduction.
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, the combination of Straumann, Suh and Poulakis ‘439 teaches the connection system according to claim 16. Poulakis ‘439 further teaches wherein at least some of the closure elements of the further closure part and/or the closure elements of the closure part include a cut laterally at a head end of the loop-shaped thread (see paragraph [0017]; loops 22, 24 cut open to produce a fastener hook). The cut is present in both the closure part and the further closure part.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Straumann teaches away from the claimed invention because its second bonding surface (12) is non-flexible. The argument is found not persuasive in view of the rejection above. As amended, the claims have necessitated a new ground of rejection where the object (12) of Straumann is no longer relied upon. As rejected, the non-flexible object (12) of Straumann serves as the functional component, and the flexible further closure part is a separate closure strip secured to it. The rigidity relied upon by Straumann ([0022]) is therefore preserved rather than removed.
Further, Straumann’s non-flexibility attribute belongs to the object (12), not to the attachment structures or their carrier. Straumann has expressly stated that the attachment structures (14) carried on a flexible carrier such as a sheet of polymer ([0021]), hooks (14A) that may be somewhat flexible ([0025]), and knobs (14B) that may be somewhat flexible or compressible ([0026]).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a reversible fastening of components on uneven, wavy, and/or deformable surfaces) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 1 fails to articulate a reason to combine Straumann and Poulakis ‘013. As set forth above, it would have been obvious to modify the further closure part of Straumann to be a flexible closure strip including an adhesive on its side opposite the further closure elements, as taught by Poulakis ‘013, in order to apply the correspondingly designed counterpart closure elements to an existing rigid object without forming the counterparts (16) as recesses on the object itself. The adhesive also provides a good connection of the closure to outside parts (Poulakis ‘013, paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 13, Applicant argues that the loop-shaped threads of Poulakis ‘439 are not suitable for Straumann’s system because they are not non-flexible and not essentially planar. As rejected above, the non-flexibility relied upon by Straumann is a feature of the object (12). It is not a feature of the attachment structures, which Straumann has described as flexible and as carried on a flexible carrier. Further, Poulakis ‘439 teaches that woven fastener portions, in which the functional threads are anchored in the base fabric and extend outward as loops or as loops cut open into hooks, provide each of the mating fastener portions ([0002], [0017]).
Regarding claim 15, Applicant argues that there is no way to determine that Suh’s fastener system has superior adhesion, and that the rationale for combining Straumann and Suh is conclusory. Suh has expressly taught that its system has superior adhesion force, generates no noise, and secures economic feasibility in manufacturing “due to the identical shape of both structures” ([0011]). Suh contrasts these advantages with the drawbacks of paired hook and loops systems ([0008]-[0010]) and supports them with shear test data (figures 10 and 12).
Conclusion
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 ROWLAND DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 7:00 PT.
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.
/R.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677
