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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: a broad resin side surface 15 in figure 1 (paragraph [0096]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 Objections
Claims 30, 31, and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities: the recitations “the fastener element head” lack antecedent basis and are suggested to be replaced with -- the head of each fastener element --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 28 recites “an overhang ratio” which is not a term of art. It is defined in the claim as the ratio of the total overhang footprint of all fastener elements in the array to a smallest area of the product including the array, where the overhang footprint of each element is the difference between the overall projected head area and the stem cross-sectional area. This definition is supported in the specification in page 2, lines 10-15 and page 18, lines 3-10 and has been applied as recited. For a repeating array, the ratio equals the overhang footprint of one element multiplied by the number of elements per unit area. Because the term is applicant’s own, the prior art does not use it by name, and the overhang ratio of the prior art product has been determined by calculation from the head dimensions, stem dimensions and element density that the reference discloses.
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.
Claim(s) 28-31, 37, and 41-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parellada Armela et al., US 2020/0170356.
Regarding claim 28, Parellada Armela discloses a male touch fastener product (10), comprising a resin surface (16); an array of at least 30 spaced-apart male touch fastener elements (14; about 2700 per cm2) arranged in rows and columns (figure 4) and carried on the surface (16), each touch fastener element (14) extending above the resin surface and comprising an elongated stem (20) extending from the surface and defining, at a midpoint (at its midpoint height; figure 3) of an overall length of the stem, a stem cross-sectional area perpendicular to the stem (20) and bounded by an outer perimeter (circular section of nominal diameter S) of the stem (20); and a head (22) disposed at a distal end of the stem (20) and forming with the stem (20) and the surface (16) a contiguous mass of resin (stems extend from base sheet 12), the head (22) extending laterally from the stem (20) to a distal edge (24) overhanging the surface (16), the head (22) defining an overall projected head area in a plane parallel to the resin surface (nominal cap diameter C = 0.077 mm, the stem diameter S = 0.049 mm; figure 6); wherein each fastener element (14) defines an overhang footprint as a difference between the overall projected head area and the stem cross-sectional area (
π
4
×
(
0.077
2
2
-
0.049
2
2
)
=
0.0028
m
m
2).
Parellada Armela does not explicitly disclose wherein the array defines an overhang ratio, as a ratio of the total overhang footprint of all fastener elements in the array to a smallest area of the product including the array, of between 7 and 17 percent. However, Parellada Armela discloses that the array preferably has a density of between 1300 and 5500 fastener elements per cm2 (see paragraph [0017]; a range of 13 to 55 elements per mm2) with the overhang footprint of about 0.0028 mm2 and thus corresponding to an overhang ratio of about 3.6% (
13
×
.
0028
) to about 15.2% (
55
×
.
0028
). When the density is 2700 per cm2 as disclosed in paragraph [0048], the overhang ratio is about 7.5%. Parellada Armela further discloses average cap diameters of 0.077 to 0.123 mm (paragraph [0051] discloses the head diameter to be about 0.123 mm), stem diameters of 0.049 to 0.066 mm (see paragraph [0052]) and densities of 1300 to 5500 per cm2 (as disclosed in [0017]). Further, the fiber capture and retention depend on head separation and stem dimension (paragraph [0054]) and that edge flexibility depends on overhang distance (paragraph [0058]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Parellada Armela’s head diameter, stem diameter, and density within the disclosed ranges such that the overhang ratio is between 7 and 17% in order to balance the overhang available to snag fibers against the spacing needed for fibers to enter beneath the heads.
Further, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 29, Parellada Armela teaches the male touch fastener product of claim 28, wherein the overhang ratio is between about 10 and 16 percent (since densities of about 3600 to 5500 per cm2 corresponding to about 10% to 15.2%).
Regarding claim 30, Parellada Armela teaches the male touch fastener product of claim 28, wherein the fastener element head (22) is generally flat across a region disposed directly over the stem (20).
Regarding claim 31, Parellada Armela teaches the male touch fastener product of claim 28, wherein the fastener element head (22) is generally flat to its distal edge (outer rim area containing the toes 24 lies in a plane generally perpendicular to the stem 20).
Regarding claim 37, Parellada Armela teaches the male touch fastener product of claim 28, wherein the product is in strip form, with a length greater than its overall width (base sheet 12 made in continuous length and rolled; [0048]), and the columns extending along its length (row spacing RS between elements of given column lies along machine direction MD; figure 4).
Regarding claim 41, Parellada Armela teaches the male touch fastener product of claim 28, wherein the distal edge of the head (22) comprises multiple toes (24) extending laterally outward and varying in shape and size about the edge (figure 5), with adjacent toes (24) having facing, free-form resin surfaces defining crevices therebetween, the crevices being narrower than the adjacent toes (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 42, Parellada Armela teaches the male touch fastener product of claim 28, wherein the head (22) defines an overall lateral extent at the distal edge (C=0.077 mm; [0051]); and for each of at least most adjacent pairs of fastener elements of the array (each head spaced equally from six others; [0054]), the two heads of the fastener elements of the pair are separated by a lateral distance (CCS=0.092 mm) of between 0.9 and 4.0 times an average of the overall lateral extent of the two heads along a line including the lateral distance (0.092/0.077 = 1.2).
Regarding claim 43, Parellada Armela teaches the male touch fastener product of claim 42, wherein the fastener element (14) has an average overhang defined as a difference between the overall lateral extent of the head (0.077 mm) and an average lateral extent of the stem (0.049 mm), and wherein for each of at least most adjacent pairs of fastener elements of the array, the two heads (22) of the fastener elements (14) of the pair are separated by a lateral distance of between 2.0 and 7.0 times an average of the overhang of the fastener elements of the pair (0.092 / 0.028 = 3.3).
Claim(s) 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parellada Armela et al., US 2020/0170356 in view of Melbye et al., US 5,879,604.
Regarding claim 32, Parellada Armela teaches the male touch fastener product of claim 28, including stems (20) that may have a non-circular cross section ([0069]). Parellada Armela does not expressly teach wherein the stems are of polygonal cross-section. Melbye teaches a mushroom type hook strip (10) in which the stems (16) may be of rectangular or hexagonal cross section (col. 4, ll. 1-3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stems (20) of Parellada Armela to have a polygonal cross section as taught by Melbye, in order to use a known, suitable alternative stem section for a molded mushroom-type fastener.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Parellada Armela and Melbye teaches the male touch fastener product of claim 32. Melbye further teaches wherein the stems are of hexagonal cross-section (col. 4, ll. 1-3).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Parellada Armela and Melbye teaches the male touch fastener product of claim 33. Parellada Armela further discloses that a head (22) on a non-circular stem is formed in a cavity having a correspondingly non-circular opening, giving a correspondingly non-circular head (figure 17; [0069]). The hexagonal stem of the combination, molded as Parellada Armela discloses, therefore would yield an overall projected head area having a generally hexagonal perimeter.
Claim(s) 35, and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parellada Armela et al., US 2020/0170356 in view of Kampfer, US 6,132,660.
Regarding claim 35, Parellada Armela teaches the male touch fastener product of claim 28, in which the head (22) overhangs the stem (20) by about the same distance on each side (overhang of approximately 0.014 mm on each side, stem centered under the head). Parellada Armela does not explicitly disclose the head overhangs the resin surface farthest on one side of the stem. Kampfer teaches a head (25’) that overhangs the resin surface farthest on one side of the stem (27), the heads project radially past the stem on at least one side, and that asynchronous movement of the heated roll relative to the web produces heads asymmetrical about the stem. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heads (22) of Parellada Armela to overhang the resin surface farthest on one side of the stem as taught by Kampfer in order to give the heads a directional engagement characteristic.
Regarding claim 38, Parellada Armela teaches the male touch fastener product of claim 28, wherein the fastener element head (22) comprises a central region that is generally flat and perpendicular to the stem (20) and disposed directly above the stem (upper surfaces generally flat and parallel to the base sheet).
Parellada Armela does not explicitly disclose an edge region surrounding the central region, in which edge region the upper surface angles downward toward the resin surface, the edge region terminating at the distal edge of the head.
Kampfer teaches a fastener element head (25’) comprising a central region (hook head top portion, generally flat or planar) that is generally flat and perpendicular to the stem (27) and disposed directly above the stem; and an edge region (fiber engaging portion 23’) surrounding the central region (rim of a round capped stem curled down into a mushroom shape, Example 7; figure 6B), in which edge region the upper surface angles downward toward the resin surface (figure 5), the edge region terminating at the distal edge of the head (29). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rims of Parellada Armela’s heads (22) to angle downward around the flat central region as taught by Kampfer in order to make head shape more uniform and improve the rim’s ability to grab individual fibers of a mating loop material.
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Parellada Armela and Kampfer teaches the male touch fastener product of claim 38, wherein the distal edge (outward tip of 23’) defines a minimum edge height above the surface, wherein the head defines a head return equal to a difference between the overall height of the fastener element above the resin surface and the minimum edge height above the surface (vertical drop from the head top to the tip).
The combination does not expressly teach wherein for each of at least most of the fastener elements of the array, the fastener element has an umbrella ratio, defined as a ratio of the head return to the overall height of the fastener element above the resin surface, of between about 0.2 and 0.5. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the turn-down of the rims of the combination such that the umbrella ratio is between 0.2 and 0.5 in order to form a crook that retains fibers, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Parellada Armela and Kampfer teaches the male touch fastener product of claim 38, wherein the edge region of the upper surface of the head defines a declination angle with respect to the resin surface (downward angle measured from a line parallel with the backing in Kampfer).
The combination does not expressly teach wherein for each of at least most of the fastener elements of the array, the declination angle of the edge region of the upper surface of the head at one side of the head is greater than at an opposite side of the head. However, Kampfer further teaches that asynchronous movement of the heated surface relative to the web produces heads asymmetrical about the stem (col. 7, ll. 49-56). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination by running the compliant roll asynchronously as taught by Kampfer, such that the declination angle at one side of the head is greater than at the opposite side, in order to give the heads a directional engagement characteristic.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parellada Armela et al., US 2020/0170356 in view of Kampfer, US 6,132,660 as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Melbye et al., US 5,879,604.
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Parellada Armela and Kampfer teaches the male touch fastener product of claim 35, in which the heads (22) overhangs the resin surface farthest on one side of the stem (Kampfer; figure 5). The combination does not expressly teach the stems are of polygonal cross-section and an apex of the cross-section is aligned with the one side of the stem at which the head overhangs farthest. Melbye teaches stems (16) of polygonal cross-section (hexagonal), and Parellada Armela discloses that non-circular stem is molded with a correspondingly non-circular head (figure 17; [0069]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stems of the combination of Parellada Armela and Kampfer to be hexagonal as taught by Melbye, with an apex of the cross-section aligned with the one side of the stem at which the head overhangs farthest, in order to place the widest reach of the hexagonal head on the side where the greater overhang is provided, since it has been held that rearrangement of these mentioned parts does not modify the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 28-43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-12 and 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,022,917 in view of Parellada Armela et al., US 2020/0170356.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim 28 reads on the patent claims 1 and 17 except for the recited array of at least 30 fastener elements arranged in rows and columns. Parellada Armela teaches an array of more than 30 elements as set forth above in the rejection of claim 28. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fastener product of patent claims 1, 17 with at least 30 elements in rows and columns in order to form a usable fastening area. Instant claims 29-43 read on patent claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, and 17-19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form for similar art cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROWLAND DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 7:00 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, 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.
/R.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights