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 and Species B, corresponding to claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 07/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/03/2026.
Drawings
Figures 1a-1b should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (filed specification, [0053]-[0054]). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of adhesive force” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 and 9-10 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 limitation “during the formation of the adhesive elements between the carrier web and the adhesive elements from the coating material a coating web is formed…” which is vague and unclear in its intended meaning and requires rephrasing for clarification as to the intended scope of the limitation. Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and thus is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 9 recites that “a carrier web” is fed to the coating material, which is unclear as to whether the limitation refers to the previously introduced “carrier web” or a new/different carrier web.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the material of the carrier web" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tuma, US 20080050553 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Tuma discloses a method for producing a fastener part (forming hook and loop fastener part, [0026]), the method comprising the steps of:
Providing a plurality of adhesive elements (hooking means in the form of stalk 17 and head 16, Figs. 1 and 4, [0027]) with frontal contact surfaces (top of head part 16, Figs. 1 and 4) configured for releasable adhesion to further components by an adhesive force (mushroom-shaped, Fig. 4, [0016], in line with the present invention, Figs. 2-4);
Wherein each adhesive element of the plurality of adhesive elements are formed in mold cavities (formed in cavities 12, [0027], Fig. 1) of a mold screen (screen 11, [0027], Fig. 1) of a molding tool (mold tool/roll 5, [0026]-[0027], Fig. 1) from a coating material (from plastic material, [0026], [0031]);
Feeding a carrier web to the coating material (unwinding a film-like plastic web as a fastener web 23 to the back of plastic material from which supporting web 10 is to be formed, [0033]) wherein the adhesive elements are formed on a side of the carrier web facing the coating material in the mold cavities of the molding tool (Fig. 1);
Connecting the carrier web to the coating material before the adhesive elements are formed (Fig. 1, [0033], with the web 23 provided by unwinding means as described).
Regarding claim 4, Tuma discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the adhesive elements are formed directly on the side of the carrier web facing the coating material (Figs. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 10, Tuma discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the material of the carrier web is selected from the group comprising polyurethane, elastomers, thermoplastic elastomers, thermoplastics, thermosets, and adhesives (plastic film including adhesive, [0033], see also [0036]).
Regarding claim 11, Tuma discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the coating material is selected from the group comprising elastomers, polyurethanes, polysiloxanes, polyvinylsiloxanes, thermoplastic elastomers, and thermoplastics (low-density polyethylene, [0033], see also [0036]).
Regarding claim 12, Tuma discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the coating material is connected to the carrier web by coating ([0033], Fig. 1), wherein the coating material is structured during coating and/or after coating (the coating/plastic material is structured in the cavities of the mold roll, Fig. 1, [0027]; coatings deposited by doctoring and aftertreatments to produce further structuring are also possible, [0036]).
Regarding claim 13, Tuma discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the mold screen of the molding tool is band-shaped (endless band of screen 11, Fig. 1), and wherein, in order to form the adhesive elements, the carrier web is brought into contact with the band-shaped mold screen with the side facing the coating material guided along the band-shaped mold screen (Fig. 1, [0033]).
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) 2-3, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuma, US 20080050553 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Poulakis, US 7008589 B1, provided in Applicant’s IDS.
Regarding claim 2, Tuma discloses the method of claim 1, wherein during the formation of the adhesive elements between the carrier web and the adhesive elements from the coating material a coating web is formed (currently best interpreted to mean essentially that a web is formed from the coating material between the adhesive elements and the carrier web; supporting web 10, Figs. 1 and 4). Tuma is silent as to the coating web having a thickness of 2 mm or less.
In the analogous art, Poulakis discloses molding a fastener part from a film of material 15 applied to a backing material 13 and molded in cavities on a shaping roll 11 (Fig. 1, col. 5, line 64 – col. 6, line 22). Poulakis teaches the film initially applied to the backing material having a constant thickness of from 12 to 50 µm (col. 5, line 64 – col. 6, line 3), such that the resulting coating web (base 21, Figs. 1, 3) has a thickness of less than 12 to 50 µm, entirely within the claimed range. Poulakis further discloses that the thickness of a fastener base should depend on the intended use of the finished product (col. 4, lines 29-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the coating web of Tuma had a thickness of 2 mm or less in order to define a suitable thickness for the coating web depending on an intended use of the finished fastener product with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Poulakis in a similar molding process.
Regarding claim 3, modified Tuma discloses the method of claim 2. Tuma does not explicitly disclose after the adhesive elements have been removed from the molding cavities of the molding tool, the carrier web is separated from the coating web; however, Tuma further discloses removing the adhesive elements from the molding cavities of the molding tool (Fig. 1) and that the connection of the layers of the plastic film/carrier web and the supporting/coating web 10 can be detachable with the choice of a suitable adhesive ([0033]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify the carrier web being separated from the coating web in order to utilize the detachable layer configuration as described by Tuma.
Regarding claim 5, Tuma discloses the method of claim 1. Tuma discloses the use of a diverse range of materials ([0036]) but does not disclose the coating material is cured after the formation of the adhesive elements by heat, by light, UV light, and/or by atmospheric humidity.
In the analogous art, Poulakis, introduced above, discloses use of a coating material that is cured after the formation of adhesive elements by UV light (Fig. 1, col. 6, lines 7-37). Poulakis teaches the UV irradiation achieves a firm bond between the backing material and the coating base (col. 6, lines 35-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a coating material and curing technique as taught by Poulakis in place of the coating material of Tuma as a substitution of one known coating material and solidification technique for another yielding predictable results of forming the fastening elements onto the backing material and in order to form a strong bond with the backing material as taught by Poulakis. MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 8, Tuma discloses the method of claim 1. Tuma discloses the backing material being a plastic film ([0033]) but is silent as to the carrier web being selected from the group comprising textile, nonwoven, net, foam, and acrylate foam.
In the analogous art, Poulakis, introduced above, further discloses the backing material being a plastic film or a nonwoven, textile, or any other suitable backing (col. 6, lines 4-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a suitable material such as a textile or nonwoven as taught by Poulakis in place of the plastic film of Tuma as a substitution of one known backing material for another yielding predictable results of serving as a backing layer for the fastener product. MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuma, US 20080050553 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Tachauer, US 20060249870 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Tuma discloses the method of claim 1. Tuma is silent as to the carrier web having a thickness of 10 mm or less.
In the analogous art, Tachauer discloses molding a fastener product including fastener elements from resin onto a preformed sheet of material introduced to a gap with the resin ([0004], Fig. 2). Tachauer teaches the preformed sheet having a thickness of about 0.001 to 0.25 inch in the nip ([0012], equivalent to about 0.025 to 6.35 mm), entirely within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the carrier web had a thickness of 10 mm or less in order to define a suitable thickness for the carrier web with a reasonable expectation of success as taught by Tachauer in a similar molding process. Note also that a change in dimensions of an element otherwise serving substantially the same function is generally not sufficient to establish patentability (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuma, US 20080050553 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Poulakis et al., DE 102020004438 A1 (text references to corresponding English equivalent US 20230258212 A1, both references provided in Applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 7, Tuma discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the carrier web is designed as a flexible component being a film (film-like plastic web capable of being unwound and molded in the apparatus of Fig. 1, [0033]). Tuma is silent as to the carrier web/film being an information-carrying film.
In the analogous art, Poulakis et al. disclose a fastening system (Abstract) comprised of an information carrying film 2 and a functional layer 6 including adhesive elements ([0007], [0035], [0048], Figs. 1-2) and continuously formed by molding using a forming screen and coating or lamination ([0021]). Poulakis teaches that the provision of information content can make the product useful as a detachable warning system for traffic signs or vehicles that can be used repeatedly without leaving a residue ([0024], [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film of Tuma such that it was information-carrying in order to render the product useful for displaying relevant information that could be easily displayed and removed as necessary as taught by Poulakis et al.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuma, US 20080050553 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kopanski et al., US 20200198192 A1 (corresponds to US 11161283 B2 provided in Applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 9, Tuma discloses the method of claim 1. Tuma does not disclose a carrier web is fed to the coating material, which has, on a side facing away from the coating material, a plurality of further adhesive elements made of a coating material with front-side contact surfaces for releasable adhesion to further components by means of adhesive force.
In the analogous art, Kopanski discloses molding resin onto a flexible substrate for forming fastener products (Abstract, [0001]) and teaches a carrier web being fed to the coating material (substrate 14 being fed to resin 16 provided by dispenser 13, Fig. 9A), which has, on a side facing away from the coating material, a plurality of further adhesive elements made of a coating material with front-side contact surfaces for releasable adhesion to further components by means of adhesive force (having formed on one side a layer 15a with fastener elements extending therefrom, and on the other side coating material forms layer 15b and corresponding fastener elements, Fig. 9A, [0060]). Kopanski teaches the technique forms a double-sided fastening product with fastener elements on two broad sides of the product ([0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Tuma to include a carrier web being fed to the coating material, which has, on a side facing away from the coating material, a plurality of further adhesive elements made of a coating material with front-side contact surfaces for releasable adhesion to further components by means of adhesive force in order to form a double-sided fastener product as taught by Kopanski.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20040222551 A1, Provost et al. (e.g., Fig. 3), and Petersen et al., US 20050202205 A1 (e.g., Fig. 1a), disclose molding fastener elements onto a backing substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights