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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on 07/21/2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicant's amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the claim rejection(s). However, Applicant's amendment(s) introduced new 112(b) rejections set forth below.
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102, Applicant’s argument that Rocha (US 20100180407 – of record) does not implicitly or explicitly disclose or suggest the newly added limitations is not found persuasive.
Rocha discloses wherein the altered areas are formed on a single side of the substrate (the projections 19 are formed only on a single side of the substrate: as shown in Figs. 1 and annotated Fig. 11),
wherein at least a first portion of the altered areas extend from the substrate in a first direction transverse to the machine direction (See annotated Fig. 11),
wherein at least a second portion of the altered areas extend from the substrate in a second direction transverse to the machine direction (See annotated Fig. 11), and
wherein the altered areas comprise protrusions (projections 19) configured for use as a touch fastener (P0051, 00067, Figs. 1 and 11). Thus, the 102 rejections are maintained.
PNG
media_image1.png
568
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/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 2 recites “the at least some of the altered areas extend from the substrate in a direction generally perpendicular to the machine direction” which is indefinite. Which of the altered areas introduced in claim 1 is applicant referring to when reciting “the at least some of the altered areas”?
Is the “direction generally perpendicular to the machine direction” of claim 2 same or different from “the first direction transverse to the machine direction” or “second direction transverse to the machine direction” of claim 1? According to Applicant’s remarks and Figs. 16, the directions should be the same. In this case, the language “direction generally perpendicular to the machine direction” broadens and confuses the language “direction transverse to the machine direction” of claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “the at least some of the altered areas extend from the substrate in a direction in a range of about 45 degrees to about 135 degrees relative to the machine direction” which is indefinite. Which of the altered areas introduced in claim 1 is applicant referring to when reciting “the at least some of the altered areas”? The limitation is also indefinite because it broadens and contradicts the limitations “first portion of the altered areas extend from the substrate in a first direction transverse to the machine direction” and “second portion of the altered areas extend from the substrate in a second direction transverse to the machine direction” of claim 1. Examiner only considers a direction of 90 degrees relative to the machine direction a direction transverse to the machine direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-2 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rocha (US 20100180407 – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Rocha discloses a method of altering a portion of a substrate (Abstract, claim 1, and Fig. 12) comprising:
providing a first device (15) comprising an outer surface (P0049, 0065, claim 1, Figs. 1 and 12);
providing a second device (13) comprising a source of vibration energy (P0049, 0065, claim 1, Figs. 1 and 12);
forming a nip between the source of vibration energy and the outer surface (Figs. 1 and 12);
conveying the substrate through the nip in a machine direction (P0050, 0065, claim 1, Figs. 1 and 12); and
altering the portion of the substrate in the nip to create altered areas integrally formed in the substrate (altering the portion of the substrate in the nip to create protrusions integrally formed, wherein the protrusions 19 read on the altered areas: P0051, 0062, claim 1, Figs. 1 and 12);
wherein the altered areas are formed on a single side of the substrate (as shown in Fig. 1 and annotated Fig. 11);
wherein at least a first portion of the altered areas extend from the substrate in a first direction (VD) transverse to the machine direction (See annotated Fig. 11),
wherein at least a second portion of the altered areas extend from the substrate in a second direction (CD) transverse to the machine direction, (See annotated Fig. 11),
wherein the first direction (VD) and the second direction are different (See annotated Fig. 11), and
wherein the altered areas comprise protrusions (projections 19) configured for use as a touch fastener (Claim 1, P0065, 0067, 0069, Figs. 1 and 11). Thus, Rocha discloses the method substantially as claimed by applicant.
PNG
media_image2.png
570
515
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
568
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Rocha further discloses/shows wherein the at least some of the altered areas extend from the substrate in a direction generally perpendicular to the machine direction (at least some of projections/hooks 19 extending from the substrate in the vertical direction VD and/or the CD direction which is a direction generally perpendicular to the machine direction: P0069, claim 1, annotated Figs. 1 and 11).
Regarding claim 4, Rocha further discloses cooling the source of vibrational energy or the first device (P0063).
Regarding claim 5, Rocha further discloses wherein the second device is a rotary sonotrode, and wherein the vibration energy is ultrasonic energy (13 can be a rotary ultrasonic horn or rotating eccentric roller configured for providing ultrasonic energy: P0050, 0071).
Regarding claim 6, Rocha further discloses wherein the second device is a blade sonotrode, and wherein the vibration energy is ultrasonic energy (13 can be a vibrating ultrasonic horn having a blade-like shape: P0050, 0071, Fig. 1; Rocha does not explicitly mention the term blade; however, the shape and function of 13 shown and described in Fig. 1 implies a blade sonotrode; furthermore; blade sonotrode are well-known type of vibrating ultrasonic horns in the art: See prior art of record).
Regarding claim 7, Rocha further discloses providing a plurality of recesses in the outer surface of the first device, wherein the recesses have a shape configured to produce protrusions in the altered areas suitable for use in a fastener (P0049, 0065, 0067, claim 1, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Rocha further discloses wherein the substrate comprises more than one layer or more than one material (Abstract, P0049, 0060-0062).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha (US 20100180407 – of record) as applied to claim 1 above, alone or further in view of Lacey (US 20100180407 – of record).
Regarding claim 3, Rocha further suggests wherein the at least some of the altered areas extend from the substrate in a direction in a range of about 45 degrees to about 135 degrees relative to the machine direction (at least some of the altered areas formed angled projections/hooks extending from the substrate in an inclined direction a range of at least about 45 degrees relative to the machine direction : P0069, claim 1, annotated Figs. 2A and 2F).
PNG
media_image3.png
175
170
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
160
167
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Rocha further discloses that the angle of the projections is an obvious modifiable parameter (P0069). Thus, Rocha implicitly discloses or suggests the claimed subject matter.
Alternatively, in the same field of endeavor, methods for creating projections on a substrate, Lacey teaches to form projections/hooks extending from a substrate in an inclined direction in a range of about 45 degrees to about 130 degrees relative to the machine direction for the benefit(s) of benefit(s) of facilitating their demolding and/or improving the properties of the projections/hooks (C10, L1-25; C15, L11-22, Figs. 2 and 11A-B).
Since Rocha further discloses that the angle of the projections is an obvious modifiable parameter (P0069), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Rocha in view of Lacey by forming at least some of the altered areas (projections) such that they extend from the substrate in a direction in a range of about 45 degrees to about 135 degrees relative to the machine direction for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of facilitating their demolding and/or improving the properties of the projections/hooks as suggested by Lacey. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha (US 20100180407 – of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rocha (US 20180050484 – of record).
Regarding claim 9, Rocha ‘407 fails to disclose a step of imparting thermal energy to a portion of the substrate upstream of the nip to heat the portion of the substrate upstream of the nip to a temperature near or below a melting temperature of the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, methods of altering a portion of a substrate by employing vibration forming, Rocha ‘484 discloses the technique of imparting thermal energy to a portion of the substrate upstream of a nip to heat the portion of the substrate upstream of the nip to a temperature near or below a melting temperature of a material of the substrate for the benefit(s) of enhancing efficiency (P0084-0085, Fig. 4). Rocha ‘484 further discloses that altering the portion in the CD direction is more preferable (P0046, Fig. 2C).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Rocha ‘407 in view of Rocha ‘484 by including a step of imparting thermal energy to a portion of the substrate upstream of the nip to heat the portion of the substrate upstream of the nip to a temperature near or below a melting temperature of a material of the substrate for yielding the predictable benefit of enhancing efficiency as suggested by Rocha ‘484. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Claim(s) 11-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha (US 20100180407 – of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jens (US 6533981 – of record).
Regarding claim 11, Rocha fails to disclose wherein the first device comprises a plurality of inserts, each of the inserts having an outer surface, and wherein a plurality of cavities are defined in the outer surface of at least some of the inserts.
In the same field of endeavor, methods of forming protrusions/fasteners integrally in a portion of a substrate via molding (Fig. 12), Jens discloses the technique of making a mold roll (1) which reads on the claimed first device with a plurality of inserts (mold rings 9 insertable in a shaft 15), each of the inserts (9) having an outer surface (Fig. 2), and wherein a plurality of cavities (2) are defined in the outer surface of at least some of the inserts (Figs. 4 and 10A) for the benefit(s) of improving efficiency, reducing cost, and/or improving flexibility/quality (Abstract, C8, L33-C10, L14, Fig. 2).
Official notice is taken that the technique of using a plurality of inserts to make mold rolls is well-known and desirable in the art for yielding the predictable result of allows for easy removal, cleaning, repair, and replacement of inserts (e.g. See Clune (US 7641469 – of record and applied below)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Rocha in view of Jens by making the first device with a plurality of inserts, each of the inserts having an outer surface, and wherein a plurality of cavities are defined in the outer surface of at least some of the inserts for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of improving efficiency, reducing cost, and/or improving flexibility/quality and allowing easy removal, cleaning, repair, and replacement/exchange of inserts as suggested by Jens. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Regarding independent claim 12, the combination of Rocha in view of Jens as applied to claims 7 and 11, disclose all the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Rocha further discloses/shows conveying the substrate through the nip in a machine direction (P0050, 0065, claim 1, Figs. 1 and 12); and wherein the at least some of the protrusions (19) extend from the substrate in a direction transverse to the machine direction (P0069, claim 1, annotated Figs. 1 and 11).
Regarding claim 14, Rocha further discloses cooling the source of vibrational energy or the first device (P0063).
Regarding claim 15, Rocha further discloses wherein the second device is a rotary sonotrode, and wherein the vibration energy is ultrasonic energy (13 can be a rotary ultrasonic horn or rotating eccentric roller configured for providing ultrasonic energy: P0050, 0071).
Regarding claim 16, Rocha further discloses wherein the substrate comprises more than one layer or more than one material (Abstract, P0049, 0060-0062).
Regarding claim 18, Jens further discloses/shows anchoring the plurality of inserts to the first device in a first direction and in a second direction (securing and compressing the plurality of mold rings to the mold roll 1 via axial tie rods 16 in a left direction and a right direction: Abstract, C6, L30-33, Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha (US 20100180407 – of record) in view of Jens (US 6533981 – of record) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Rocha (US 20180050484 – of record).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Rocha ‘407 in view of Jens, as applied above, fails to disclose a step of imparting thermal energy to a portion of the substrate upstream of the nip to heat the portion of the substrate upstream of the nip to a temperature near or below a melting temperature of a material of the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, methods of altering a portion of a substrate by employing vibration forming, Rocha ‘484 discloses the technique of imparting thermal energy to a portion of the substrate upstream of a nip to heat the portion of the substrate upstream of the nip to a temperature near or below a melting temperature of a material of the substrate for the benefit(s) of enhancing efficiency (P0084-0085, Fig. 4). Rocha ‘484 further discloses that altering the portion in the CD direction is more preferable (P0046, Fig. 2C).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the method of Rocha ‘407 in view of Rocha ‘484 by including a step of imparting thermal energy to a portion of the substrate upstream of the nip to heat the portion of the substrate upstream of the nip to a temperature near or below a melting temperature of a material of the substrate for yielding the predictable benefit of enhancing efficiency as suggested by Rocha ‘484. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha (US 20100180407 – of record) in view of Jens (US 6533981 – of record) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Clune (US 7641469 – of record) and/or Sato (US 5173313 – of record).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Rocha ‘407 in view of Jens, as applied above, fails to disclose a step of anchoring the plurality of inserts to the first device using a wedge.
In the same field of endeavor, methods of forming protrusions/fasteners integrally in a portion of a substrate via molding and securing a plurality of inserts to assemble a molding roll, Clune discloses the technique of fastening a plurality of inserts (mold rings 504) to a first device (mandrel 105: C6, L6-10, Fig. 1) using a wedge (902 having a wedge-like shape: Fig. 14) in order to successfully assembly a molding roll (C11, L54-C12, L46, Fig. 14). Clune discloses the technique of using the plurality of inserts allows for easy removal, cleaning, repair, and replacement of inserts (C5, L4-6). Clune further discloses the desire of forming all or some of the protrusions in a direction transverse/perpendicular to a machine direction (Figs. 5, 9, and 12).
PNG
media_image5.png
276
357
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
400
409
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In an analogous art, securing a plurality of inserts to assemble a molding roll, Sato discloses the technique of fastening a plurality of inserts (31, 32) to a first device (1) using a wedge (41,42) in order to successfully assemble a stamping roll and improve contact between the plurality of inserts (31, 32) and the first device (1: C3, L35 – C4, L31, Figs. 1-2).
Thus, the technique of anchoring the plurality of inserts to the first device using a wedge is known and desirable to anchor/fasten the plurality of inserts.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the method of Rocha in view of Clune and/or Sato by including a step of anchoring the plurality of inserts to the first device using a wedge for yielding the predictable results of successfully assembling a molding roll and/or improving contact between the plurality of inserts and the first device as suggested by Clune and Sato. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure.
Rocha (US 20260054431) discloses the technique of forming protrusions (13) on a single side (lower side) of the substrate (as shown in Figs 4-B and accompanying description);
wherein at least a first portion of the altered areas extend from the substrate in a first direction transverse to the machine direction (as shown in Figs 4-B and accompanying description),
wherein at least a second portion of the altered areas extend from the substrate in a second direction transverse to the machine direction (as shown in Figs 4-B and accompanying description),
wherein the first direction and the second direction are different (as shown in Figs 4-B and accompanying description), and
wherein the protrusions (13) configured for use as a touch fastener (Abstract).
Sans (FR 3053909A3 with English machine translation – FOR of record) discloses the technique of cooling a sonotrode during ultrasonic processing/melting of plastics for the benefit(s) of preventing damage of the sonotrode (pg. 1, Fig. 1).
Kazmirzak (DE 10250741A1 with English machine translation – FOR of record) discloses the technique of heating and cooling a sonotrode during ultrasonic operations for the benefit(s) of providing efficient/desirable heating without damaging the temperature sensitive components of the sonotrode (pg. 1, Fig. 9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights