DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Currently claims 1-12 are pending for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 11 recites the limitation “wherein a pitch of observed portions of the tightening thread along the at least one core yarn is less than a pitch of fastener elements on the fastener tape”. The instant specification provides literal support for the limitation in paragraphs [0011] and [0040], however the specification does not describe how this relationship is physically achieved. No examples are provided, therefore there does not appear to be an actual reduction to practice where the relationship of claim 11 is achieved.
Paragraph [0040] of the instant specification refers to Fig. 3 and defines the pitch interval P1 as the pitch interval of observed portions of the tightening thread and the pitch interval P2 as being the pitch interval of the fastener element. In Fig. 3, the “ends” of the pitch appear to be defined by the center point of the fastener element, which also appears to be the center point of the gap between fastener elements, and at the center point of the fastening element. In the embodiment displayed in Fig. 3 both P1 and P2 encompass the length of a gap between fastener elements and the length of a fastener element. Therefore P1 must equal P2 and the relationship of claim 11 is not met. A figure is not provided where P1 is less than P2.
Paragraph [0041] of the instant specification describes how when P1 is less than P2 it is more likely that the fastener elements are attached to the locations where the tightening thread crosses the core yarn compared to a case where the condition is not satisfied. In particular, paragraph [0041] states that compared with a number of fastener elements attached to the core yarn at locations where the tightening thread is not provided, a number of fastener elements attached to the core yarn at locations where the tightening thread crosses the core yarn is increased in a given length. If a fastener element is attached to the core yarn at a location where the tightening thread is provided, it is the understanding of the Examiner that there would then be no observed portion of the tightening thread. It is therefore unclear how P1 can be less than P2 when fastener elements both cover and do not cover the tightening thread. If a fastener element covers one turn of the tightening thread and the two adjacent fastener elements do not, then there are three fastener elements located between two observed portions of the tightening thread and P1 will be greater than P2. It is unclear from the disclosure how covering more tightening thread turns, which appears to be the goal, can result in a pitch of observed portions of the tightening thread that is less than a pitch of the fastener elements as is claimed.
Based on the disclosure provided, the knowledge and level of skill in the art would not have permitted the ordinary artisan to immediately envisage the claimed product arising from the disclosed process. See MPEP 2163(I)(A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-2 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (US 3864946)1 in view of Duhl (US 4144727).
With respect to claims 1 and 6, Matsuda teaches a warp-knitted stringer tape having a longitudinal inner edge portion formed by the incorporation of a reinforcing core between adjacent wales (col. 1, lines 21-36). The core 11 is inserted between the first or innermost wale W1 and the second wale W2 at the longitudinal inner edge portion 12 (col. 1, lines 60-67). As can be seen in Fig. 1, the first wale W1 is positioned outwardly of the tape relative to a center of the core 11 and the second wale W2 is positioned inwardly of the tape relative to the center of the core 11. Additional weft threads 14, 15 (at least one tightening thread) are provided for fastening the core 11 in place between the first and second wales W1 and W2 (col. 2, lines 1-6).
Matsuda is silent as to the weft thread 14 (predetermined tightening thread) repeats turning without formation of a loop at the first wale W1 and forming a loop with which a ground thread of the tape base fabric at the second wale W2.
Duhl teaches a fabric comprising at least two warp design elements (abstract) The design elements are bound to the substrate by knitting thread which forms a multiplicity of warpwise loop chains (e.g., a half-tricot stitch) to secure the substrate and the design elements against relative displacement and to form thereby an integrated fabric structure (abstract).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the weft thread 14 to bind the core 11 with a half-tricot stitch because it is known in the art as a suitable stitch for attaching warp yarn to a substrate and will secure the core 11 and the substrate from relative displacement to form an integrated fabric.
It is noted that a half-tricot stitch as identified by the instant specification in paragraph [0031] provides the claimed structure of forming loops on one edge of its swinging width and not forming loops on the other. Matsuda in view of Duhl teaches the claimed stitch structure but does not explicitly teach whether the loop is formed on the first wale W1 or the second wale W2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the two loop locations in order to determine which provides the least relative displacement. See MPEP 2143. When the loop is located on the second wale W2, no loops other than the loops formed by the ground knit thread are formed at the first wale W1.
With respect to claim 2, Matsuda in view of Duhl teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Matsuda further teaches the warp-knitted stringer tape T may have two reinforcing cores 11a and 11b (col. 2, lines 25-36). The two cores are superimposed on one another and are secured in position by two fastening weft threads 14 (predetermined tightening thread) and 15 (weft-inserted thread) (col. 2, lines 25-36). As can be seen in Fig. 2, the fastening weft thread 15 (weft-inserted thread) swings and repeatedly turns without formation of a loop at both the first wale W1 and the second wale W2 (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 5, Matsuda in view of Duhl teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above. Matsuda further teaches the first and second weft threads 14 and 15 are laid in from opposite directions with their respective loops 14a and 15a alternating with each other so that the respective turns 14b and 15b of these loops at the wales W1 and W2 are not overlapped (col. 2, lines 37-45).
With respect to claim 7, Matsuda in view of Duhl teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Matsuda further teaches W1 is the first or innermost wale of the longitudinal inner edge portion (Fig. 1; col. 1, lines 64-67).
With respect to claim 8, Matsuda in view of Duhl teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As can be seen in Fig. 1 of Matsuda, the stringer tape has a sinker loop face and a needle loop face opposite the sinker loop face (Fig. 1). The first fastening weft thread 14 (predetermined tightening thread) touches the core yarn 11 on the side of the sinker loop face, and repeats crossing the core yarn 11 on the side of the sinker loop face (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
421
333
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, Matsuda in view of Duhl teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As can be seen in Fig. 1, the tape base fabric includes a plurality of chain stitches and a plurality of weft-inserted threads each swinging in a swinging width across plural wales so as to interconnect the plurality of chain stitches.
PNG
media_image2.png
421
333
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 10, Matsuda in view of Duhl teaches all the limitations of claim 9 above. As can be seen in Fig. 1, the turning portions of first fastening weft thread 14 (predetermined tightening thread) cross and are held by a chain stitch thread at the first wale W1.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (US 3864946)2 in view of Duhl (US 4144727) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Matsuda (US 4047265)3.
With respect to claims 3-4, Matsuda in view of Duhl teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above.
Matsuda in view of Duhl is silent as to the another wale being a wale that is positioned inwardly of the tape relative to the second wale W2 and the weft fastening thread 15 (second tightening thread) having a swinging width that is greater than a swinging width of the weft fastening thread 14 (first tightening thread).
Matsuda ‘265 teaches a stringer tape for a sliding clasp fastener comprising a warp-knit structure which carries along one longitudinal edge a row of interlocking fastener elements (col. 1, lines 7-10). The longitudinal edge portion of the support tape is formed by a chain stitch A, a first tricot stitch B spanning every two wales and a second tricot stitch B spanning every three wales (col. 2, lines 27-36). The knit system of this tape portion is thus rendered rigid enough to anchor the fastener elements stably into position thereon with uniform strength, irrespective as to whether the elements are mounted on the courses or not (col. 2, lines 27-36).
Since both Matsuda in view of Duhl and Matsuda ‘265 teach warp-knitted stringer tape for slide fasteners comprising reinforced edges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the weft fastening threads 14 and 15 (first and second tightening threads) to have a span of two wales and three wales, respectively (the second tightening thread has a swinging width that is greater than a swinging width of the first tightening thread) in order to provide an edge that is rigid enough to anchor fastening elements stably into position with uniform strength.
With respect to whether the fastening thread 14 (first tightening thread) or the fastening thread 15 (second tightening thread) has the width of two or three wales, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried each of the fastening threads with the different wale widths in order to determine which provides the desired final strength and rigidity. See MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (US 3864946)4 in view of Duhl (US 4144727) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wakata (US 2013/0022778).
With respect to claim 12, Matsuda in view of Duhl teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Matsuda further teaches fastening fastener elements to the core (col. 1, lines 21-36).
Matsuda in view of Duhl is silent as to the fastener elements being metal.
Wakata teaches it is known in the art that metallic fastener elements can be provided on a fastener tape with a core thread (paragraph [0003]). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fastener elements of Matsuda in view of Duhl to be metal because it is known in the art as a suitable material for a fastener element and would provide the predictable result of a slide fastener.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Cited in IDS
2 Cited in IDS
3 Hereinafter referred to as Matsuda ‘265
4 Cited in IDS
