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
Claims 24-26 and 50-51 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected, invention being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/25/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and claims 1-10 and 27-31 in the reply filed on 8/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of undue length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 31 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 31 recites “the two-sided touch fastener material of any one of claim 29,” and it appears it should recite “the two-sided touch fastener material of claim 29.” 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 1-10 and 27-31 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 1 recites the limitation "the strip-form base" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the base” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the web with fiber portions" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fibers" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the strip-form base" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the base” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the web with fibers" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the stitching yarns" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10, 28-29, and 31 also stand rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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) 1-3, 5-9, 27-29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Romanko et al. (U.S. 2002/0162197).
As for Claim 1, Romanko discloses a two-sided touch fastener material comprising:
a resin base (31, see para [0083]) having a front surface (top surface of 31);
an array of loop-engageable fastener elements (33) extending from the front surface of the
strip-form base and having stems of resin contiguous with resin of the front surface of the
base (see para [0083]); and
a backing (35’) secured to the resin base on a side opposite the front surface, the backing
extending across the resin base and comprising a web of non-woven fibers comprising fiber segments embedded in resin of the base (see para [0067]); and
a plurality of longitudinally continuous bundles of fibers extending through the
web with fiber portions of the longitudinally continuous bundles exposed as loop
elements (37) engageable by the loop-engageable fastener elements (see para [0067]);
wherein the longitudinally continuous bundles of fibers extend along a length of the
base (see Figs. 3a-3g), are spaced apart across a width of the base, are partially embedded in resin of the base such that a thickness of resin of the base at the fibers is less than between the longitudinally
continuous bundles of fibers, and wherein the longitudinally continuous bundles of fibers correspond to areas of weakened tear resistance of the touch fastener material (see para [0005, 0168, 0089-0090 and 0096]).
Re: Claim 2. (Original) The two-sided touch fastener material of claim 1, wherein the web of non-woven fibers comprises a batt of non-woven fibers (see para [0067] and Figs. 3a-3g).
Re: Claim 3. (Original) The two-sided touch fastener material of claim 1, wherein the backing
comprises a stitchbond fabric, of which the longitudinally continuous bundles of fibers comprise
Re: Claim 5. (Original) The two-sided touch fastener material of claim 3, wherein each stitching
yarn is stitched through the web of non-woven fibers to define stitches of one to ten millimeters
in length along the touch fastener material (see Figs. 3a-3g and para [0067 and 0069]).
Re: Claim 6. (Original) The two-sided touch fastener material of claim 1, wherein each
longitudinally continuous bundle of fibers is part of a line of stitches that encircle groupings of
staple fibers of the web (see Figs. 3a-3g and para [0069 and 0072]).
Re: Claim 7. (Original) The two-sided touch fastener material of claim 1, wherein the non-woven
fibers of the web are of a material different from a material of the fibers of the longitudinally continuous bundles of fibers (see para [0083]).
Re: Claim 8. (Original) The two-sided touch fastener material of claim 7, wherein the
longitudinally continuous bundles of fibers are of polyethylene terephthalate (see para [0083]) and wherein the non-woven fibers are of polypropylene (see para [0083]).
Re: Claim 9. (Original) The two-sided touch fastener material of claim 1, wherein the loop
elements extend to a distance of between 0.5 to 1.6 millimeters from the resin base (see para [0059] and Figs. 3a-3g).
As for Claim 27, discloses a two-sided touch fastener material comprising:
a resin base (31) having a front surface;
an array of loop-engageable fastener elements (33) extending from the front surface of the
strip-form base and having stems of resin contiguous with resin of the front surface of the base; and
a backing (35’) secured to the resin base on a side opposite the front surface, the backing
extending across the resin base and comprising a web of non-woven fibers comprising fiber segments embedded in resin of the base (see Figs. 3a-3g); and
a plurality of longitudinally continuous monofilaments extending through the web
with fibers exposed as loop elements (37) engageable by the loop-engageable fastener elements;
wherein the longitudinally continuous monofilaments extend along a length of the base (see Figs. 3a-3g), are spaced apart across a width of the base, are partially embedded in resin of the base such that a
thickness of resin of the base at the fibers is less than between the longitudinally continuous monofilaments, and wherein the longitudinally continuous monofilaments correspond to areas of weakened tear resistance of the touch fastener material (see para [0005, 0168, 0089-0090 and 0096]).
Re: Claim 28. (Original) The two-sided touch fastener material of claim 27, wherein the web of
non-woven fibers comprises a batt of non-woven fibers (see Figs. 3a-3g).
Re: Claim 29. (Original) The two-sided touch fastener material of claim 27, wherein the backing
comprises a stitchbond fabric, of which the longitudinally continuous monofilaments comprise stitching yarns stitched through the web of non-woven fibers (see Figs. 3a-g).
Re: Claim 31. (Original) The two-sided touch fastener material of any one of claim 29, wherein each stitching yarn is stitched through the web of non-woven fibers to define stitches of one to ten millimeters in length along the touch fastener material (see Figs. 3a-3g and para [0067 and 0069]).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 10, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romanko et al. (U.S. 2002/0162197).
Romanko discloses the claimed invention except it fails to explicitly recite and disclose wherein the stitching yarns are stitched through the web of non-woven fibers at a stitching density of 15 to 25 stitches per square centimeter and wherein the loop elements comprise portions of fibers having a denier of between 40 and 400.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the stitching density of 15 to 25 stitches per square centimeter and fibers having a denier of between 40 and 400 limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, one will be motivated to improve strength and flexibility. Refer to MPEP § 2144.05. Furthermore, there is no criticality disclosed in Applicant’s specification toward the limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kono (U.S. 2003/0126724) and Tolan (U.S. 2005/0081345) discloses analogous fasteners pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M UPCHURCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7957. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-3PM EST M-F.
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.
/DAVID M UPCHURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights