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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a FINAL office action on the merits. Claims 1-8 and 10-11, as filed are currently pending and have been considered below.
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) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koyama (JP 2018051226).
Regarding claim 8, Koyama discloses an apparatus made of a synthetic resin (Translation, Paragraph 8, last line) and including a base portion (9b, 9t) and a plurality of engagement elements (9p), the base portion including a first surface and a second surface disposed opposite to each other, the plurality of engagement elements protruding from the first surface of the base portion (Fig. 13b, 13d and 14b as shown), wherein
the second surface of the base portion includes a low position portion (9t) and a plurality of expand portions (9b) expanding in a direction away from the first surface with respect to the low position portion, and
the expand portions are disposed at positions on a side of the second surface, the positions corresponding to positions of the engagement elements provided at the first surface (Fig. 13b, 13d and 14b as shown), and
one of the expand portions is provided for each of the engagement elements (the current claim language allows for the ratio of expand portions to engagement elements shown in Figs. 13b, 13d and 14b; each of the engagement elements has an associated expand portion).
Regarding claim 11, Koyama further discloses wherein the base portion has a connection region in which the base portion and the engagement elements are connected to each other, and a formation region of the expand portions at the second surface of the base portion is provided such that, when the connection region is imaginarily disposed correspondingly on the side of the second surface of the base portion, the connection region imaginarily disposed on the side of the second surface is included in the formation region of the expand portions (Fig. 13b, 13d and 14b as shown).
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 Koyama as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 10, Koyama discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a dimension of the base portion at the low position portion in a thickness direction is more than or equal to 65% and less than or equal to 85% of a maximum value of a dimension of the base portion at the expand portions in the thickness direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relate the thicknesses of the portions with the claimed ratios 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As noted above, the claim language added to claim 8 is not limited to a one-to-one relationship between the expand portions and engagement elements. The embodiments noted above in Koyama still meets the new claim language.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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