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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 July 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulakis (US 7,670,663) in view of Perina et al. (US 3,696,472).
Regarding claim 1, Poulakis discloses an apparatus comprising:
a rear side (34) being a first fabric (Column 5, lines 36-40 describe a woven material) configured to be bonded to a rubber material by integral bonding utilizing vulcanization (the material described is capable of being bonded integrally in the claimed manner);
a function side (14) being a second fabric (Column 4, lines 26-27), which has individual hook-and-loop elements (18) that are kept free of the rubber material and produce a releasable hook-and-loop closure when engaged with corresponding hook-and-loop elements (Column 4, lines 7-16); and
a barrier layer (32) between the rear side and the function side, wherein the barrier layer is configured to prevent liquid rubber material and/or flowable vulcanization products from entering the function side from the rear side during the integral bonding utilizing vulcanization (the material of the layer is capable of preventing flow of vulcanization material; Column 5, line 12 describes wherein the material is melamine. Melamine is capable of prevent flow of a liquid rubber material).
Poulakis fails to disclose wherein the first and second fabric are knitted instead of woven.
Perina et al. teach wherein fabrics can be provided by knitting or weaving (Column 4, lines 58-65).
From this teaching of Perina et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to the fabric of the connecting component (34) and backing fabric (14) of Poulakis from knitting methods. Knitting provides enhanced characteristics of stretch and flexibility over woven fabrics.
Regarding claim 2, the combination device of Poulakis and Perina et al. further disclose wherein the first knitted fabric of the rear side and/or the second knitted fabric of the function side are formed from a hook-and-loop element (Fig. 2 of Poulakis shows a function side with loop elements).
Regarding claim 3, Poulakis further discloses wherein the rear side and the function side are each formed from a velour (Figs. 1 and 2 show a velour loop material on the function side).
Regarding claim 4, the combination device of Poulakis and Perina et al. further disclose wherein the velour used for the rear side and the function side consists of the knitted fabric with the fiber covering made of closed pile loops (16, 18, Fig. 2 as shown of Poulakis).
Regarding claim 5, Poulakis further discloses wherein the velour of the rear side is formed thinner relative to the velour of the function side, (Claims 3 and 4 above do not require the rear side to comprise velour, as such the limitations of Claim 5 are met insomuch as Claims 3 and 4 do not require the rear side to have velour of the description of the current claim), and the respective velour for the rear and function side consists of a polyamide (Column 2, line 10 describes the use of polyamide for the closure material).
Regarding claim 7, Poulakis further discloses wherein the barrier layer consists of a temperature-resistant film having a melting point greater than 180 C (Melamine has a melting temperature in excess of 180 C, See US 3,761,660 lines 33-37).
Regarding claim 12, Poulakis further discloses wherein the barrier layer is joined to the two opposite velours by an adhesive layer (Claim 3 above does not require the rear side to comprise velour, as such the limitations of Claim 12 are met insomuch as Claim 3 does not require the rear side to have velour of the description of the current claim).
Regarding claim 13, Poulakis further discloses wherein the respective adhesive layer is formed from a polyurethane (Column 4, lines 55-58).
Regarding claim 14, Poulakis further discloses wherein the respective adhesive layer is formed from a polyurethane being a reactive polyurethane adhesive (Column 4, lines 55-58).
Regarding claim 15, Poulakis further discloses an apparatus according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above) and a corresponding hook-and-loop element, the closure part being connected to the corresponding hook-and-loop element via the hook-and-loop elements of the function side (Column 4, lines 8-12).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulakis in view of Perina et al. and Banfield (US 5,286,431).
Regarding claim 19, Poulakis discloses an apparatus comprising:
a rear side (34) being a first fabric (Column 5, lines 36-40 describe a woven material);
a function side (14) being a second fabric (Column 4, lines 26-27), which has individual hook-and-loop elements (18) that are kept free of the rubber material and produce a releasable hook-and-loop closure when engaged with corresponding hook-and-loop elements (Column 4, lines 7-16); and
a barrier layer (32) between the rear side and the function side, wherein the barrier layer is configured to prevent liquid rubber material and/or flowable vulcanization products from entering the function side from the rear side during the integral bonding utilizing vulcanization (the material of the layer is capable of preventing flow of vulcanization material; Column 5, line 12 describes wherein the material is melamine. Melamine is capable of prevent flow of a liquid rubber material).
Poulakis fails to disclose wherein the first and second fabric are knitted instead of woven.
Perina et al. teach wherein fabrics can be provided by knitting or weaving (Column 4, lines 58-65).
From this teaching of Perina et al. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to the fabric of the connecting component (34) and backing fabric (14) of Poulakis from knitting methods. Knitting provides enhanced characteristics of stretch and flexibility over woven fabrics.
Poulakis further fails to disclose wherein the part is vulcanized by bonding a rubber material by integral bonding utilizing vulcanization to a rear side, wherein the first knitted fabric is disposed between the rubber material and the barrier layer and is at least partially embedded in the rubber material by the integral bonding utilizing vulcanization.
Banfield teaches a hook and loop fastener bonded by vulcanized rubber (7) wherein a material is embedded within the rubber (Fig. 3A 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 embed the first knitted fabric of Poulakis in a vulcanized rubber as taught be Banfield in order to preserve the hook and loop elements and allow for easy removal when performing successive molding steps.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulakis as applied to claim 7 above.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Poulakis discloses the invention except for wherein the barrier layer is made of a polyethylene terephthalate film and is fluorinated on both sides. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use fluorinated polyethylene terephthalate for the barrier layer of Poulakis in place of the melamine since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The use of the fluorinated polyethylene terephthalate would ensure sufficient bonding with an applied adhesive.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulakis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Poulakis (US 2008/0222856; hereafter referred to as ‘856).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Poulakis discloses the invention except for wherein the barrier layer is treated by means of a gas phase fluorination for increasing the surface energy and for increasing the surface energy on both sides.
‘856 teach wherein gas phase fluorination is used for increasing surface energy (Paragraph 27, last 4 lines).
From this teaching of ‘856, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to pretreat the surface of the barrier layer with gas fluorination to prepare the surfaces for enhanced bonding to adhesives.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the barrier layer as claimed is configured for preventing liquid and/or flowable vulcanization products during integral bonding vulcanization wherein the materials listed in Poulakis are incapable of performing these limitations and are not configured for such duty. However, Applicant has failed to provide the conditions for vulcanization and has only broadly described the process. As noted above, the carrier melamine material has the melting point and physical properties that would withstand liquid flow at elevated temperatures. Without specifics for the vulcanization process the melamine material is still considered appropriate to read upon the claim limitations of claim 1. Applicant’s remarks for the other limitations including those in dependent claims 7-9 are met by the melamine material disclosed in Poulakis.
Conclusion
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
