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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takayoshi et al. (JP2014-27989).
Regarding claim 1, Takayoshi et al. discloses an apparatus comprising:
a textile substrate fabric composed of warp and weft (Abstract); and
multiple engaging elements (6) rising from the one surface of the substrate fabric (Fig. 1 as shown),
wherein the engaging element is a loop-shaped engaging element, a hook-shaped engaging element, or both (English Translation, Page 5, Paragraph 1),
wherein the hook-shaped engaging element is formed of a yarn for hook-shaped engaging element which is woven into the substrate fabric parallel to the warp (Translation, Page 7, lines 11-12),
wherein the loop-shaped engaging element is formed of a yarn for loop-shaped engaging element which is woven into the substrate fabric parallel to the warp (Translation, Page 7, lines 11-12),
wherein the warp is made of a polyethylene terephthalate-based polyester, wherein the yarn for hook-shaped engaging element is made of the polyethylene terephthalate-based polyester or a polybutylene terephthalate-based polyester (Translation, Page 6, second to last paragraph),
wherein the yarn for loop-shaped engaging element is made of the polyethylene terephthalate-based polyester or a polybutylene terephthalate-based polyester (Translation, Page 6, second to last paragraph),
wherein the weft is made of a core-sheath type heat-fusible fiber in which a heat- fusible low-melting point polyester resin is contained as a sheath component and the polyethylene terephthalate-based polyester is contained as a core component (Translation, Page 6, 2nd paragraph),
wherein a root of the engaging element is fused to the melted sheath component and fixed to the substrate fabric (Translation, Page 6, lines 8-12),
wherein the sheath component and the core component of the warp and the weft, and the engaging element are dyed with a disperse dye (Translation, Page 12, second paragraph describes a disperse dye), and
(1) the disperse dye is present inside the core component of the core-sheath type heat- fusible fiber (Translation, Page 12, second paragraph describes a disperse dye);
(2) a rupture elongation of the hook-shaped engaging element is 27 to 41%; and
(3) a rupture elongation of the loop-shaped engaging element is 35 to 45% (the materials for the warp and weft yarns used in Takayoshi et al. and the present claimed application being the same would also have the same physical properties).
Regarding claim 2-8 and 11, Takayoshi et al. further discloses: wherein the rupture elongation of the hook-shaped engaging element is 27 to 38%; wherein the rupture elongation of the loop-shaped engaging element is 35 to 40 %; wherein the engaging element is the hook-shaped engaging element, and a degree of crystallization of the engaging element is 62 to 72 %; wherein the engaging element is the hook-shaped engaging element, and a breaking strength of the engaging element is 4.29 to 4.47 cN/dtex; wherein the engaging element is the loop-shaped engaging element, and the degree of crystallization of the engaging element is 75 to 87 %; wherein the engaging element is the loop-shaped engaging element, and the breaking strength of the engaging element is 2.01 to 2.07 cN/dtex; wherein a transmittance of the sheath component (heat-fused portion) of the core-sheath composite fiber is 70% or less; wherein a transmittance of the sheat component (heat-fused portion) of the core-sheath composite fiber is 50%$ or less (as described above, the materials for the warp and weft yarns used in Takayoshi et al. and the present claimed application being the same would also have the same physical properties).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takoyashi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aoshima et al. (US 2003/0000051).
Regarding claim 10, Takoyashi et al. disclose the invention except for wherein said disperse dye is at least one selected from the group consisting of a monoazo benzeneazo, a disazo benzeneazo, a heterocyclic azo, an anthraquinone, a quinophthalone, a styryl and a coumarin.
Aoshima et al. teaches disperse dyes including anthraquinone (Paragraph 86, lines 6-9).
From this teaching of Aoshima et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use the anthraquinone taught by Aoshima et al. as the disperse dye used in Takoyashi et al. for the diverse vibrant color characteristics and light fastness. Furthermore, 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 Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that identical or similar materials will not exhibit the same properties (rupture elongation). Applicant has noted evidence wherein a difference in material preparation has resulted in different results. Claim 1 was constructed around the rupture elongation property results as shown in Fig. 2. However, there appear to be several issues with the manner Applicant is constructing the claim.
Applicant is attempting to claim mechanical properties without claiming the methodology to achieve the mechanical properties. While the properties may be a direct result of Applicant’s methodology, there still lies the possibility of achieving these same results without a different methodology. This raises concerns of indefiniteness.
Applicant has provided results from individual tests but has not clearly provided sufficient evidence these results are repeatable or the accuracy to which the results correlate. Drawing figurative lines around the results of a handful of test results is not considered to be a robust correlation between the parameters being tested.
Applicant has further failed to disprove the prior art of Takoyashi et al. would present with the same mechanical properties. Applicant’s Comparative Examples are not considered sufficient evidence that all similar or even identical materials would not exhibit the same mechanical properties. Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
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 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
Prosecution Insights