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 .
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 11-16 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 C1 and C2 which are imaginary circles being claimed as inscribing various structures of the device. However, it is not clear how Applicant is using the term “inscribed”. The circle C2 is claimed as being tangent to the head at one point while the circle C1 appears to be colinear with the lower end of the rod. Therefore, the term “inscribed” cannot be meaningfully understood.
Regarding Claims 3-4, the limitation “optionally” renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitation “…two opposite edges of which at least one, in some cases both, edges…” is indefinite.
Regarding Claim 15, the “edges” claimed appear to be indefinite because the rod does not appear to have edges as best discerned in the drawings.
Regarding Claim 16, the limitation “a ratio between the dimension of the upper end and the dimension of the lower end” are not defined enough to be understood.
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallant, U.S. Patent 11,160,334.
Regarding Claim 1, insofar as the claim is understood Gallant teaches:
A base (16) extending along a longitudinal direction, having an upper face and a lower
face (see fig. 1),
a plurality of retaining elements (14) extending on the upper face (Fig. 1A) of the base, each retaining element comprising a rod (18) surmounted by a head (20a); each rod (30) comprising a lower end (12) connected to the base, and an opposite upper end from which the head extends,
wherein, for each retaining element, in projection in a plane formed by the upper face of the base:
the lower end of the rod is inscribed within a first circle C1 with center 01, the head is inscribed within a second circle 02 with center 02 and diameter D2, said second circle being the smallest circle comprising the head, which second circle 02 being tangent to one end of the head along the longitudinal direction and/or the transverse direction (see drawing selection below).
Gallant does not explicitly teach:
The maximum dimension of the head passing through the center 02 of the circle 02 and extending along the longitudinal direction and/or the transverse direction is less than 80% of the diameter D2 of the second circle 02.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Gallant with the claimed dimensions because Applicant has not cited any criticality stemming from the claimed dimensions nor provided any unforeseen result or specific problem solved by the claimed dimensions and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5].
PNG
media_image1.png
573
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, insofar as the claim is understood, see C2 above and note the 112 rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, insofar as the claim is understood, Gallant is silent with regard to the claimed dimensions. However, it is well within the ordinary skill of those in the art to provide Gallant with the claimed dimensions because Applicant has not cited any criticality stemming from the claimed dimensions nor provided any unforeseen result or specific problem solved by the claimed dimensions and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. Furthermore, reducing these distances would reduce the overall volume of the retaining element which would reduce the overall material used which would save material costs for large volume manufacturing.
Regarding Claim 4, insofar as the claim is understood, Gallant is silent with regard to the claimed dimensions. However, it is well within the ordinary skill of those in the art to provide Gallant with the claimed dimensions because Applicant has not cited any criticality stemming from the claimed dimensions nor provided any unforeseen result or specific problem solved by the claimed dimensions and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. Furthermore, reducing these distances would reduce the overall volume of the retaining element which would reduce the overall material used which would save material costs for large volume manufacturing.
Regarding Claim 5, Gallant is silent with regard to the separation between the circle center O1 and O2. However, it is well within the ordinary skill of those in the art to provide Gallant with the claimed dimension separating the centers of circles C1 and C2 because Applicant has not cited any criticality stemming from the claimed dimensions nor provided any unforeseen result or specific problem solved by the claimed dimensions and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. Furthermore, reducing the sizes of these retaining elements would reduce the overall volume of the retaining element which would reduce the overall material used which would save material costs for large volume manufacturing.
Regarding Claim 6, Gallant is silent with regard to the third circle C3 inscribing the upper end of the rod, however, it is arbitrary to designate an upper end of the rod and set forth an imaginary circle which inscribes the top of the rod and falls within the second circle C2 because the top of the rod would clearly be within the outer perimeter of the head (see below). It would be advantageous to provide the third circle C3 because that would provide for an undercut at the end of the rod which would enhance the fastening action of the elements.
PNG
media_image2.png
288
463
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, insofar as the claim is understood, Gallant teaches the limitations of this claim in Col 1, Lns 28-31.
Regarding Claim 8, Gallant is silent with regard to the ratio of the diameters D1 and D2 of circles C1 and C2 being within the claimed ranges. However, it is well within the ordinary skill of those in the art to provide Gallant with the claimed dimensions because Applicant has not cited any criticality stemming from the claimed dimensions nor provided any unforeseen result or specific problem solved by the claimed dimensions and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. Furthermore, a change in size or proportion is also considered well within the ordinary skill of those in the art, In re Rose. And, lastly, reducing this ratio would reduce the manufacturing tolerance of the element size which would enhance fastening of the elements in the aggregate.
Regarding Claim 9, Gallant is silent with regard to the hook height being between 30 micrometers and 120 micrometers, 30 and 70 micrometers or 40 and 60 micrometers. However, it is well within the ordinary skill of those in the art to provide Gallant with the claimed dimensions because Applicant has not cited any criticality stemming from the claimed dimensions nor provided any unforeseen result or specific problem solved by the claimed dimensions and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. Furthermore, a change in size or proportion is also considered well within the ordinary skill of those in the art, In re Rose. And, lastly, reducing this hook height range would reduce the manufacturing tolerance of the element size which would enhance fastening of the elements in the aggregate.
Regarding Claim 10, Gallant is silent with regard to the head thickness being between 30 and 70 micrometers or 40 and 60 micrometers. However, it is well within the ordinary skill of those in the art to provide Gallant with the claimed dimensions because Applicant has not cited any criticality stemming from the claimed dimensions nor provided any unforeseen result or specific problem solved by the claimed dimensions and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. Furthermore, a change in size or proportion is also considered well within the ordinary skill of those in the art, In re Rose. And, lastly, reducing this thickness range would reduce the manufacturing tolerance of the element size which would enhance fastening of the elements in the aggregate.
Regarding Claim 11, Gallant is silent with regard to the hook height being between 150 and 330 micrometers or 200 and 300 micrometers. However, it is well within the ordinary skill of those in the art to provide Gallant with the claimed dimensions because Applicant has not cited any criticality stemming from the claimed dimensions nor provided any unforeseen result or specific problem solved by the claimed dimensions and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. Furthermore, a change in size or proportion is also considered well within the ordinary skill of those in the art, In re Rose. And, lastly, reducing this height range would reduce the manufacturing tolerance of the element size which would enhance fastening of the elements in the aggregate.
Regarding Claim 12, Gallant is silent with regard to the ratio of the thickness of the head and the height of the rod between 0.05 and 0.3 or 0.1 and 0.25. However, it is well within the ordinary skill of those in the art to provide Gallant with the claimed dimensions because Applicant has not cited any criticality stemming from the claimed dimensions nor provided any unforeseen result or specific problem solved by the claimed dimensions and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. And, lastly, reducing this ratio range would reduce the manufacturing tolerance of the element size which would enhance fastening of the elements in the aggregate.
Regarding Claim 13, Gallant is silent with regard to the ratio of the hook height and the height of the rod being between 0.05 and 0.4 or 0.05 and 0.3 or 0.1 and 0.25. However, it is well within the ordinary skill of those in the art to provide Gallant with the claimed dimensions because Applicant has not cited any criticality stemming from the claimed dimensions nor provided any unforeseen result or specific problem solved by the claimed dimensions and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. And, lastly, reducing this ratio range would reduce the manufacturing tolerance of the element size which would enhance fastening of the elements in the aggregate.
Regarding Claim 14, insofar as the claim is understood, Gallant teaches curvature as best understood in the claim (see figs. 3, 7), but is silent with regard to the specific dimensions claimed. However, it is well within the ordinary skill of those in the art to provide Gallant with the claimed dimensions because Applicant has not cited any criticality stemming from the claimed dimensions nor provided any unforeseen result or specific problem solved by the claimed dimensions and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5].
Regarding Claim 15, insofar as the claim is understood, Gallant teaches the general shape of the Applicant’s rod, but the details of this claim are not understood and therefore Examiner cannot state whether the prior art teaches the claimed limitations. However, it is well within the ordinary skill of those in the art to provide Gallant with the claimed dimensions because Applicant has not cited any criticality stemming from the claimed dimensions nor provided any unforeseen result or specific problem solved by the claimed dimensions and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. It is further considered obvious to provide the claimed shape because a change in shape is generally considered obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art and applicant has not provided any unforeseen result stemming from the use of the claimed structure nor provided any specific problem solved by the claimed structure, In re Dailey.
Regarding Claim 16, insofar as the claim is understood, Gallant is silent with regard to the ratio of the “dimension” (Examiner notes this dimension is not understood). However, it is well within the ordinary skill of those in the art to provide Gallant with the claimed dimensions because Applicant has not cited any criticality stemming from the claimed dimensions nor provided any unforeseen result or specific problem solved by the claimed dimensions and it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. And, lastly, reducing this ratio range would reduce the manufacturing tolerance of the element size which would enhance fastening of the elements in the aggregate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5218. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Typically M-Th, 8:00-6:00, regular Fr availability.
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.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677