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 I, claims 1-3, in the reply filed on July 8, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 4-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed July 8, 2026 has been entered. Claim 3 is currently amended. Claims 4-7 have been withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1-3 are under examination.
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 1-3 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.
Regarding claim 1, at lines 11 and 12, the claim recites “thin plate member”. The limiting effect of the recitation is unclear due to the word “thin”. The word “thin” is a relative term that renders the scope of the claim indefinite. It is not clear what ranges of values are reasonably within the scope of the term “thin”. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “closely in contact”. The limiting effect of the recitation is unclear. It is not clear how the term “closely” limits the claim. It is not clear whether this means the contact is along the entire surface or whether there is pressure holding the inner and outer sleeves together or whether something else is intended. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Additionally, it is not clear in claim 2 which limitations regarding the “at least one sleeve” in claim 1 apply to the outer sleeve and inner sleeve of the sleeve. It is not clear whether both the inner and outer sleeves are metal and it is not clear whether they are both welded at the claimed inclined angle. If only one of the outer sleeve and inner sleeve is required to have the sleeve limitations from claim 1, it is not clear which one is intended or whether either is intended. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Claim 3 is rejected as a dependent claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takekawa et al. (US 2020/0107617) in view of Buzzell et al. (US 2004/0045142) and any one of Yoshihiro et a. (JP 2006-240096), Kim (US 2015/0345540), Smith et al. (US 6,161,751), Carlin (US 5,562,312), Stagg (US 5,456,405), Martin et al. (US 3,912,151) or Kunzog (US 3,153,990).
Regarding claim 1, Takekawa et al. teach a surface-fastener-manufacturing method of manufacturing a surface fastener made of synthetic resin and including a base part having a plurality of engaging elements (Figures 1, 7, 10, 12-16, 19-31), the method including at least a molding step of performing molding by feeding molten synthetic resin toward a die wheel that is rotating in one direction (Figure 1 (31) (32) (33) (34) (35); Figure 10), wherein the manufacturing method comprises: using the die wheel in the molding step, the die wheel including at least one sleeve having cavities with which the engaging elements or tentative elements to be deformed into the engaging elements are to be molded, the sleeve having a circular cylindrical shape and obtained from a metal thin plate member by bringing one end portion and another end portion of the thin plate member in a first direction into contact with each other and joining the one end portion and the other end portion brought into contact with each other to each other by welding, the one end portion and the other end portion joined to each other forming a welded part (Figures 1, 2, 3 and 10 (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (38) (40) and (41); paragraphs [0136] and [0138]).
Takekawa et al. do not teach a stretching step of performing a stretching process in a machining direction after the molding step. However, Buzzell et al. teach an analogous method wherein a stretching step in a machining direction is performed after the molding step (Abstract; Figures 1, 2, 11, 12 and 21; paragraphs [0009]-[0018], [0069] and [0114]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Takekawa et al. and Buzzell et al. and to have stretched the fastener of Takekawa et al. in a machining direction after performing the molding step in the method of Takekawa et al., as suggested by Buzzell et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Buzzell et al. of reducing the thickness and increasing the molecular orientation of the fastener.
Takekawa et al. do not explicitly teach the welded part being inclined at an angle of 4° or greater with respect to a second direction, the second direction being orthogonal to the first direction and disposed along an axial direction of the sleeve.
However, each of Yoshihiro et al. (Abstract, 10-45° to the axial direction butting of the ends/edges of an analogous sheet; Figures 1-3), Kim (Abstract; paragraphs [0007], [0011], [0012], [0016]-[0019], [0023], [0024], [0027]-[0031], [0062] and [0067]; Figures 11 and 12), Smith et al. (Abstract; Figure 1; col. 2, line 65-col. 3, line 50), Carlin (col. 3, lines 1-15), Stagg (Abstract; Figures 4a and 4b; col. 1, lines 6-10; col. 2, lines 15-46; col. 4, lines 5-34), Martin et al. (Abstract; Figures 1 and 1; col. 2, lines 40-65) and Kunzog (Figure 6; col. 1, lines 54-62; col. 3 ,lines 24-41; claim 1) analogously teach forming a welded part with an inclination angle within or which overlaps the claimed range.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Takekawa et al. and any one of the secondary references and to have formed the welded part with an inclination angle as claimed (i.e. at an angle of 4° or greater with respect to a second direction, the second direction being orthogonal to the first direction and disposed along an axial direction of the sleeve) in the method of Takekawa et al., as suggested by any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by Yoshihiro et al. of improving the thickness accuracy and uniformity of the produced product, or for the purpose, as suggested by the other secondary references, of effectively securing the portions together in an art recognized suitable manner that provides sufficient/improved strength (e.g. Martin; col. 2, lines 58-65; Kunzog), reduces stress in the weld part (e.g. Smith et al. col. 3, lines 47-50; Carlin col., 3, lines 1-15), and improves the quality of the welded part (Kunzog). In combination with the secondary references, the weld part of Takewawa et al. is angled at the inclinations suggested by the secondary references in order to realize substantially the same/similar advantages set forth in the references by welding the ends/edges at an angle.
As to claim 2, Takekawa et al. disclose inner and outer sleeves structured as claimed (Figures 2 and 3 (33) (34) (38) (40) (41)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takekawa et al. (US 2020/0107617) in view of Buzzell et al. (US 2004/0045142) and any one of Yoshihiro et a. (JP 2006-240096), Kim (US 2015/0345540), Smith et al. (US 6,161,751), Carlin (US 5,562,312), Stagg (US 5,456,405), Martin et al. (US 3,912,151) or Kunzog (US 3,153,990), as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, alone or further in view of Harvey et al. (US 2003/0041957).
As to claim 3, the combination suggests forming inner and outer sleeves with through-holes and recessed portions as claimed and welding the sleeves (Figures 2 and 3 (33) (34) (38) (40) (41)); paragraphs [0136] and [0138]). Determining the hardness to select for each of the inner and outer sleeves would have been readily determined by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to effectively form the desired overall shape of each of the fastener components by the roll molding method of Takewawa et al. There are 3 options to choose from (e.g. the inner has the same, lower or higher hardness) and it would have been a routine expedient to make such a determination in the analogous mold rolling art (also see MPEP 2143 rationale E). Alternatively, Harvey et al. disclose an analogous method wherein it is disclosed that the stresses and forces applied to analogous mold rolls needs to be considered (paragraph [0082] and [0095]). Harvey et al. provide an additional teaching and suggestion to consider the properties of the sleeve of Takewawa et al. to ensure they are not damaged in use and to ensure the quality of the fastener is maintained/achieved. In further view of the teaching of Harvey et al., it would have been prima facie obvious to have determined and selected the hardness of the sleeve components of Takewawa et al. including to have a softer inner sleeve, as suggested by Harvey et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of effectively forming the desired overall shape of each of the fastener components by the roll molding method of Takewawa et al. while ensuring the sleeves are not damaged in use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights