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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2024 and 04/22/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-5, drawn to a polyester-based woven-fabric hook -and-loop fastener.
Group II, claims 6-12, drawn to a method for producing a polyester-based woven-fabric hook-and-loop fastener.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a polyester-based woven-fabric hook-and-loop fastener having selvage parts comprising: a base fabric being a woven-fabric made of a warp yarn and a weft yarn, both being polyester-based yarns, and a yarn for an engaging element woven in parallel into the warp yarn, the engaging element made of the yarn for the engaging element existing on a front face side of the base fabric and having at least one kind of shape selected from the group consisting of a large number of loop shapes and a large number of hook shapes, rising from a front face of the base fabric, the weft yarn containing a heat-fusible component, and a base of the engaging element being fixed to the base fabric by the heat-fusible component, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Kaiko (US 2018/0014611).
Kaiko discloses a hook and loop fastener comprising a woven base cloth. The base cloth composed of warps, weft, and engaging element yarns and engaging elements formed from the engaging element yarns (0013). The warps and wefts formed of polyester-based fibers (0062). The weft includes thermal bonding fibers (instant heat-fusible component) and the engaging element yarns are fixed to the base cloth by thermal bonding fibers (0013). The engaging element existing on a front face side of the base fabric and having a shape selected form loop shapes (Fig. 1). The fabric having selvage parts (4-2) (0035, Fig. 1).
During a telephone conversation with Kirsten Grueneberg on 06/09/2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-5. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 6-12 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claims 1-5 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 1 recites “a large number” of loop shape or hook shapes, the term “large number” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large number” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what would be considered a large number compared to a normal number of loop or hook shapes. I.e., it is unclear as to the threshold of the number of loop or hook shapes which is considered “large”.
For sake of further examination as number of loop or hook shapes will be considered “a large number”.
Claims 2-5 are rejected as being dependent upon indefinite claim 1.
Claims 1 and 2 recite a thickness of the warp yarn at a position at which the warp yarn subducts most toward a rear face side being “0.94 times or less (or in a range of 0.7 to 0.90 times) of a thickness thereof”. It is unclear what the “thickness thereof” is referencing, as the only “thickness” referred to is of the warp yarn and it is not clear how the thickness can be compared to itself.
For sake of further examination, the claim will be examined at reciting a thickness of the warp yarn at a position at which the warp yarn subducts most toward a rear face side of the base fabric is “0.94 times or less (or in a range of 0.7 to 0.90 times) a thickness at a position at which the warp yarn floats most toward the front face side of the base fabric.”
Claims 3-5 are rejected as being dependent upon indefinite claim 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 6-7 of U.S. Patent No. 18/251500. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both independent claims require a polyester-based woven-fabric hook-and-loop fastener having a woven base fabric formed of weft and warp yarns, which are polyester-based, an engaging element yarn on the front face side of the base fabric which has a loop or hook-shape; the weft yarn containing a heat-fusible component which fixes the engaging element to the base fabric, both require a thickness of the warp yarn at a position where it subducts most toward a rear face side of the base fabric which is 0.94 times or less a thickness at a position at which the warp yarn floats, and a selvage part where the engaging elements are not present at both end parts in parallel to the warp yarn direction.
Claim 2 is not patentably distinct because claims 1-3 recite an overlapping range for the warp thickness.
Claim 3 is not patentably distinct because claim 6 recites the absence of adhesive.
Claim 5 is not patentably distinct because claim 7 recites a disperse dye.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Kaiko (US 2018/0014611) discloses a hook and loop fastener comprising a woven base cloth. The base cloth composed of warps, weft, and engaging element yarns and engaging elements formed from the engaging element yarns (0013). The warps and wefts formed of polyester-based fibers (0062). The weft includes thermal bonding fibers (instant heat-fusible component) and the engaging element yarns are fixed to the base cloth by thermal bonding fibers (0013). The engaging element existing on a front face side of the base fabric and having a shape selected from loop shapes (Fig. 1). The fabric having selvage parts (4-2) (0035, Fig. 1). While not expressly teaching how the selvage part is formed being formed by cutting and removing a base part of the engaging element is product by process language (MPEP 2113).
Kaiko does not teach a thickness of the warp yarn at a position at which the warp yarn subducts most toward a rear face side of the base fabric is 0.94 times or less a thickness at a position at which the warp yarn floats most toward the front face side of the base fabric.
Sagara (WO2020/153160) discloses a hook and loop fastener comprising a woven base cloth. The base cloth composed of warps, weft, and engaging element yarns and engaging elements formed from the engaging element yarns (page 3, paragraph 8-9) The warps and wefts formed of polyester-based fibers (page 4, paragraph 2 and 9). The weft includes thermal bonding fibers (instant heat-fusible component) and the engaging element yarns are fixed to the base cloth by thermal bonding fibers (page 3, paragraph 10). The engaging element existing on a front face side of the base fabric and having a shape selected from hook shapes (Fig. 1).
Sagara does not teach selvage parts or a thickness of the warp yarn at a position at which the warp yarn subducts most toward a rear face side of the base fabric is 0.94 times or less a thickness at a position at which the warp yarn floats most toward the front face side of the base fabric.
Tojo et al. (WO2019/087329) teaches a sheet material comprising a bas/substrate material (3) having elasticity and a skin material (2) of knitted warp/weft threads (page 3, paragraph 3). Tojo teaches the surface material fibers comprising polyester-based yarn (page 3, paragraph 5). Tojo teaches embossing the sheet material (page 4, paragraph 5), such that the yarns of the skin material are compressed and the thickness is less in the subducted region vs the region where the skin floats (e.g., Fig. 1b).
Tojo does not teach selvage parts. Moreover, Tojo does not teach the thickness difference form the embossing is of the warp yarn and thus fails to teach a thickness of the warp yarn at a position at which the warp yarn subducts most toward a rear face side of the base fabric is 0.94 times or less a thickness at a position at which the warp yarn floats most toward the front face side of the base fabric.
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