DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first office action on the merits. Claims 19 and 21-36, as filed are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 22 and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 29 May 2026. Claim 21 reads on non-elected Species F, wherein the interference section is formed by overlapped layers of the strap and is also withdrawn.
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 19, 23 and 25-35 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.
In claim 19, lines 4-6 describe wherein overlapping portions of the fastener material can be fastened via mutually engageable touch fasteners. However, the current language is broader than what is supported by the disclosure. Currently, the referenced claim language encompasses fastener elements on the same side of the strap to become affixed with one another when the strap is overlapped such that the same side contacts with itself. This arrangement is not supported.
Claims 30-34 recite the limitation "the grommet". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims or parent claim 19. For examination purposes, claims 30-32 are examined as if being dependent upon claim 25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 19, 23 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sastre et al. (US 6,044,525).
Regarding claim 19, Sastre et al. discloses an apparatus (30) comprising:
a length of flexible material (Column 6, lines 26-27) with two opposite faces bounded by lateral edges extending along the length of flexible material (Fig. 3 as shown); and
mutually engageable touch fastener elements (70, 72) carried on the faces of the flexible material to releasably fasten overlapping portions of the fastener material together with the fastening strap wrapped about an object (the flexible strap as shown in Fig. 3 can be used in this manner);
wherein the length of flexible material has a perimeter shaped to form a head (32) joined to a tail (34, 36) at a neck (44), the tail extending to a distal end (49) opposite the head;
wherein the head has an overall length (L1), from the neck to an outer edge of the head opposite the tail, and defines therethrough a transverse slot (38) with bounded ends, the slot sized to freely receive the distal end of the tail (Column 4, line 25; Fig. 3 shows W3<W4); and
wherein the tail includes an interference section (34), extending from the neck toward the distal end of the tail a distance of at least half the overall length of the head and less than an overall length of the tail (Column 5, lines 39-41 lists the lengths, L1, L2 and L), in which the tail is of cross-sectional dimensions selected to define an interference fit with respect to the slot, such that when the interference section is manually pulled into the slot, friction in the slot retains the tail in the slot (Column 5, lines 46-48 wherein W5 is slightly larger than W3 to provide slight interference).
Regarding claim 23, Sastre et al. further discloses wherein the nominal width is greater along the interference section of the tail than in a distal section (48) of the strap extending from the interference section to the distal end (Fig. 3 shows wherein W5>W4).
Regarding claim 29, Sastre et al. further discloses wherein the flexible material comprises a laminate of a loop material (72) forming one of the two opposite faces of the flexible material, and a resin layer (69, Column 6, line 25 incorporates by reference US Pat. 5,260,015 wherein the hooks 21 are formed from plastic 20) carrying male touch fastener elements (70) and forming the other of the two opposite faces of the flexible material (Fig. 5A as shown).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cristea (US 4,411,049).
Regarding claim 36, Cristea discloses an apparatus comprising:
a length of flexible material with two opposite faces bounded by lateral edges extending along the length of flexible material (Figs. 1-5B as shown); and
mutually engageable touch fastener elements carried on the faces of the flexible material to releasably fasten overlapping portions of the flexible material together with the fastening strap wrapped about an object;
wherein the length of flexible material is folded (along 22) to have a perimeter shaped to form a head (12) joined to a tail (14) at a neck (Figs. 3A-5B as shown), the tail extending to a distal end (21) opposite the head (Fig. 1 as shown);
wherein the head defines therethrough a transverse slot (20) with bounded ends, the slot sized to freely receive the distal end of the tail (Figs. 1-5B as shown); and
wherein the head comprises two overlapping layers of the length of flexible material joined at a fold, with the slot extending through both of the two overlapping layers and with only one of the two overlapping layers extending to the distal end of the tail (Figs. 2-5B as shown).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 25 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sastre as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Gallant et al. (US 2005/0186387).
Regarding claim 25, Sastre et al. discloses the invention except for wherein the head comprises a grommet of greater thickness than the flexible material and defines the transverse slot.
Gallant et al. teach a head grommet (110) of greater thickness than a flexible material (105; Fig. 1A shows wherein the head is thicker than the strap material) defining a transverse slot (145).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize the need to solidify and reinforce the slot of Sastre et al. to reduce wear on the head experienced during usage. The strap and slot would undergo high stresses during use and application of tension. The thickened resin material described and shown in Gallant et al. would further strengthen the slot and head of the strap of Sastre et al.
Regarding claim 30, the combination device of Sastre et al. and Gallant et al. further discloses wherein the grommet comprises molded resin (Paragraph 137, lines 1-4 of Gallant et al. describe the resin molded structure of the head).
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sastre et al. as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Cristea (US 4,411,049).
Regarding claim 26, Sastre et al. discloses the invention except for wherein the head is formed by two layers of the flexible material, joined at a fold.
Cristea teaches a head (12) formed with a fold (22; Figs. 1-7B as shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the need to reinforce the head region of the strap. Pulling the strap through the aperture and tightening the strap about an object would subject high stresses to the aperture. Folding the material would double the strength of the head, slot and the strap overall.
Regarding claim 27, Sastre et al. further discloses wherein the head has exposed surfaces carrying engageable loop fibers (Column 6, lines 27-31 describe wherein the base material of the strap has loops on one of the opposed surfaces.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fold the layers in a direction such that the loops remain exposed. Folding the strap in this manner would minimize contact of a strapped item with the more abrasive hooked surfaces.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sastre et al. and Cristea as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Steinwagner et al. (US 2011/0019937).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Sastre et al. and Cristea discloses the invention except for wherein the two layers are permanently welded together across the head.
Steinwagner et al. teach wherein a reinforced handle aperture (19) is formed by folding over and overlapping material secured together with a weld (18).
From this teaching of Steinwagner et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize welding the folded over material of the combination device of Sastre et al. and Cristea ensures the transverse slot remains aligned and stresses applied to the slot would be evenly distributed between both layers ensuring the strength of the head and slot to prevent tears of the strap at the head.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sastre et al. and Gallant et al. as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Brewster (US 5,411,784).
Regarding claim 31, Sastre et al. further discloses wherein the touch fastener elements carried on one of the two opposite faces have discrete resin stems extending from a layer of resin (Fig. 5A as shown) but fail to disclose wherein the molded resin of the grommet is of a higher durometer than the layer of resin.
Brewster teaches a grommet (32) molded from ABS (Column 9, lines 17-20).
Gallant et al. further teaches wherein the fastener elements extend from the resin base (Paragraph 134, first 8 lines) and the resin base is formed from thermoplastic materials including polypropylene, polyethylene and polyamides (Column 143, last 4 lines). Gallant et al. also teaches wherein the head can be attached to the backing material instead of being integrally formed (Paragraph 136, last 4 lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the need to have the material of the head and slot to be of a more robust material than what is used for the touch fastener elements since these parts endure the highest overall stresses. Providing a distinct ABS grommet for the head material as taught by Brewster would establish a grommet with a higher durometer than the thermoplastic materials for the fastener elements described in Gallant et al. (ABS is recognized as having a higher durometer than the resin materials listed in Gallant et al. NOTE the relative durometer table as provided from https://www.specialchem.com).
Claim(s) 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sastre et al. and Gallant et al. as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of LoTufo (US 6,223,390).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Sastre et al. and Gallant et al. disclose the invention except for wherein the grommet consists of two identical grommet halves, each grommet half comprising a flange overlaying a respective side of the flexible material adjacent the slot.
LoTufo teaches wherein a grommet can be provided to material with two identical halves (20; Column 1, lines 37-38; Figs. 1-8 as shown).
From this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize the usage of identical halves to provide a grommet, as demonstrated by LoTufo, would simplify the design and production costs while still providing a structural bolstering of the head and aperture which would experience high stress during use.
Regarding claim 33, the combination device of Sastre et al., Gallant et al. and LoTufo further discloses wherein the grommet halves are joined at a perimeter of the slot to form an inner edge of the slot (Fig. 8 of Lutofo shows wherein the grommet halves are joined at a perimeter).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sastre et al. Gallant et al. and LoTufo as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Brewster.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Sastre et al. Gallant et al and LoTufo disclose the invention except for wherein the grommet halves are welded together about the slot.
Brewster teaches wherein grommet halves are welded together (Column 9, lines 42-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the need to more permanently and securely attach the halves of the grommet together. The welding of Brewster would prevent accidental disassembly of the grommet from the strap.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sastre et al. as applied to claim 19 above.
Regarding claim 35, Sastre et al. discloses the invention and provides relative lengths of the transverse slot and nominal width of the tail (See Column 5, lines 38-55) but fails to specify wherein the transverse slot length is between 3.0 and 8.0 percent greater than the nominal width of the tail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize need to optimize the width to tail ratio such that tail is easily passed through the slot without sacrificing too much strength of the strap. Setting slot to be between 3.0 and 8.0 percent greater than the tail would have been obvious since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Delangis et al. (US 2021/0362642) for a strap having a reinforced aperture formed by a folded over design.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/MICHAEL S LEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights