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 .
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) 1-15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2009/0246485 to Panse in view of US Pub No. 2014/0322497 to Kelsey.
Regarding Claims 1-15 and 17-19
Panse teaches a laminate structure comprising, in order, an outer textile having an inner and outer surface comprising 50-100% meltable fibers such as polyester fibers (Panse, abstract, fig. 4, paragraphs [0043], [0044]), a heat reactive material comprising polymer resin and expandable graphite (Id., paragraph [0035]), a middle layer which may comprise a thermally stable double layer of ePTFE film having a weight of 46 gsm which is within the claimed range of between 10 and 50 gsm (Id., paragraph [0083]), flame retardant adhesive material (Id., paragraph [0084], [0101]-[0103]) positioned in a pattern such as dots which would necessarily form pockets defined by the surrounding components (Id., paragraph [0122]) and an inner layer having an outer and inner surface, such as a flame retardant textile such as aramid or modacrylic fabric (Id., paragraph [0022], claim 19). Panse teaches that the laminate has a total weight of less than or equal to 340 gsm (Id., claim 10). Panse teaches that the outer textile may comprise a weight of 130 gsm and the inner layer may comprise a weight of 60 gsm, which lies between the claimed ranges of between 30 and 250 gsm and between 20 and 250 gsm respectively (Id., paragraph [0101]- [0103]). Panse teaches that the laminate may form a garment wherein the outer layer faces flame and therefore the inner layer faces a wearer (Id., paragraph [0005]).
Although Panse teaches a discontinuous dot pattern for the flame retardant adhesive and the use of a grid pattern and a surface coverage of less than 70% for the heat reactive material, Panse does not appear to teach that the pockets are surrounded by the inner layer, the middle layer and a portion of the flame retardant adhesive material, or the use of a grid pattern and surface coverage value for the flame retardant adhesive (Id., paragraphs [0036]- [0041]). However, Kelsey teaches a multilayer protective fabric comprising an adhesive layer such as a flame retardant adhesive, which may be applied in a perpendicular grid pattern which necessarily creates pockets wherein the adhesive surrounds the pocket area (Kelsey, abstract, paragraph [0015], [0045]). Kelsey teaches that the coverage value is greater than or equal to 30% which overlaps the claimed range of less than 75% (Kelsey, claim 35). Kelsey teaches that the distance between adjacent adhesive may be between 1.5mm and 10cm which would result in between 2.25 square millimeters and 10,000 square millimeters (Id., paragraph [0047]). Kelsey teaches multilayered articles including the discontinuous adhesive improves the comfort, movement and flexibility while reducing the weight and is suitable for use as a garments for fire-fighting (Id., paragraphs [0006]-[0007], [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the multilayer fabric of Panse and to include as the pattern of the adhesive bonding the inner layer, the grid pattern of Kelsey, motivated by the desire to form a conventional protective multilayer fabric having improved comfort, flexibility and lighter weight.
Regarding Claim 6
Regarding the amount the laminate shrinks when tested in accordance with a thermal shrinkage test, in general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, although the prior art does not disclose a shrinkage of less than 10%, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since the Panse reference teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 VINCENT A TATESURE whose telephone number is (571)272-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-4PM 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, Jennifer Chriss can be reached at 5712727783. 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.
/VINCENT TATESURE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights