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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The previously relied upon prior art of Gallant is capable of meeting the amended limitations. Examiner notes that the amended limitations create a 112(b) issue that must be addressed. It is unclear if the claim requires the smallest circle comprising the head with no other constraints or if a reader of the claim can use the smallest circle that also meets the tangent requirements of “tangent to one end of the head along the longitudinal direction and/or the transverse direction”. Examiner has provided a drawing selection below which would render the claim obvious, but the detailed constraints cannot be fully evaluated since the figures are not schematics. Clarification of the geometric requirements of the “head” would receive favorable consideration towards allowance.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “0” should likely be “0%”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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, It is unclear what the claims require for the geometry of the circles which define the head. As written, multiple interpretations are considered permissible. The smallest circle comprising the head shape must have at least one tangent, but would likely have at least two tangents. Applicant has provided several options for tangent points in the claims. So, it is unclear if the smallest circle must be defined and then the tangent points would be defined by that OR if the circle must be smallest that must also satisfy the tangents as chosen from the selection provided in the claim, “one end of the head along the longitudinal and/or transverse direction”. A fully defined “smallest circle” enclosing any shape will have at least two or exactly three tangent points. Since these claim limitations are vital to the understanding of the structure these instructive claim requirements must be fully understood. Applicant has clarified the definition of “inscribed” in the remarks and this definition must also be satisfied.
Examiner notes that applicant pointed to several different paragraphs in the specification which set forth the criticality of the claimed geometry (see Section IV of Remarks) and this would be given patentable weight when clearly defined and understood in light of the claim limitation issues discussed above.
Claim 17 is not understood, 0% (zero) of any value would be 0 (zero) and the claim requires a distance to be both less than or equal to 0 (zero) and greater than or equal 0 (zero). This would make the only satisfactory distance being 0 (zero). Less than zero is not possible for the claimed distance. Furthermore, the drawings do not appear to support this limitation. If applicant is intending to claim that the circles are concentric then applicant is advised to simplify the limitation. If Applicant intends to claim some other structural aspect then the Examiner cannot determine what that structural aspect is.
Claims 2-16 and 18-20 rejected as depending from a rejected 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.
Claim(s) 1 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 (Fig. 1),
a plurality of retaining elements (14) extending on the upper face of the base, each retaining element comprising a rod (18) surmounted by a head (20a); each rod comprising a lower end connected to the base, and an opposite upper end from which the head extends (Figs. 2-3),
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 a first center (see below), the head is inscribed within a second circle (see below) with a second center (centered on centroid 40) and a diameter, said second circle being the smallest circle comprising the head, which the second circle of the head being tangent to one end of the head along the longitudinal direction and/or the transverse direction,
such that:
the maximum dimension of the head passing through the second center of the second circle and extending along the longitudinal direction and/or the transverse direction is less than… the diameter of the second circle (see drawing selection below in light of 112(b) rejection above).
**Examiner’s Note: Examiner notes that the Head Maximum Dimension is not straight the circle center as required, but this is only to make the drawing understandable. The maximum dimension would clearly be smaller than the diameter if passing through the circle center.
Gallant does not teach the maximum dimension of the head passing through the second center of the second circle being less than 80% of the diameter of the second circle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the head such that the maximum dimension of the head when passing through the circle center as claimed would be less than 80% of the diameter of the circle because that would reduce the overall size of the head and therefore reduce material costs in high volume manufacturing.
PNG
media_image1.png
471
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, insofar as the claim is understood, the second circle is comprised in the first circle (see above).
Regarding Claim 3, insofar as the claim is understood, Gallant is silent with regard to the claimed dimensions, but, clearly teaches the distance between the first center and the second center being less than 50% of the diameter of the first circle (see drawing selection above).
Regarding Claim 4, insofar as the claim is understood, Gallant is silent with regard to the claimed dimensions, but, clearly teaches the distance between the first center and the second center being less than 50% of the diameter of the second circle (see drawing selection above).
Regarding Claim 5, insofar as the claim is understood, Gallant is silent with regard to the claimed dimension. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the distance between the first circle center and the second circle center as 100 micrometers because that would reduce the size of the fasteners and this would increase the fastener density for a same area and this would therefore increase the fastening strength of the device. Furthermore, 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.
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 the first and second circles 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. 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. 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. 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.
Regarding Claim 17, insofar as this claim is understood (see 112(b) rejection above), Examiner believes Applicant intends to claim the first and second circles being concentric. Gallant teaches a structure where the second circle can be drawn to meet the limitations of Claim 1 and also have concentric circles (see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
1035
1035
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, this claim sets forth a density requirement for the fasteners. Gallant is silent with regard to the specific limitations of this claim, but clearly sets forth a fastener density (see Col 2, Lns 59-62). 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 fastener density 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 19, see the drawing selection above which clearly shows a non-zero distance between the centers of the circles.
Regarding Claim 20, Gallant is silent with regard to absolute distance between the first and second circle centers. 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 distance separating the circle centers 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].
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 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.
/MATTHEW J SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights