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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the embodiments described using the phrase “and/or” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Claim 2 requires an embodiment wherein the rear side only is formed with a hook-and-loop element and an embodiment wherein the function side only is formed from a hook-and-loop element. Claim 3 requires an embodiment wherein only the function side is formed from a velour and an embodiment wherein only the rear side is formed from velour. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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 2-5 and 12-14 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.
Claims 2 and 3 both use the phrase “and/or” followed by the term “each”. However, the term “each” would only apply under the “and” portion of the “and/or”. Clarification of how the term “each” applies with the use of “or”.
Claims 4, 5 and 12-14 depend from the above claims and inherit the issues under 35 USC 112 and are rejected herewith.
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).
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 is/are each 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/or 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/or 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 (Column 5, lines 1-9 list possible materials for the barrier layer including at least red phosphorus. Red phosphorus has a melting temperature in excess of 180 C, See US 2023/0038150 lines 12-16 lists a melting point of 590 C).
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) 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 materials listed in column 5, lines 2-9 for the backing layer 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 16 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawing objections, Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 do not appear to address the issues regarding the usage of the term “and/or” noted above.
Regarding the rejections under 112, the issues previously noted with claims 2 and 3 persist and are included above.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant has noted the substrate layer of Poulakis is used for its “flame-retardant and/or extinguishing properties”. Applicant further notes Poulakis is silent to the substrate layer’s inhibition or prevention of material transport during a vulcanization process. However, Applicant has not made it clear that the barrier layer film serves any enhanced ability at preventing this material transport. The substrate layer of the prior art appears to also be capable of inhibiting the transport of material. Applicant also argues Poulakis does not have “any corresponding second adhesive layer”. However, this limitation is never claimed and does not appear to be currently pertinent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
/M.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights