DETAILED ACTION
This is an Office action based on application number 17/600,395 filed 30 September 2021, which is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2020/060226 filed 9 April 2020, which claims priority to EP19168974.4 filed 12 April 2019. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Amendments to the claims, filed 4 March 2026, have been entered into the above-identified application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4 March 2026 has been entered.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oner-Deliormanli et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0151517 A1) (US 517) in view of Omori (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0006182 A1) (Omori) and as evidenced by Slevin (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0230302 A1) (Slevin).
Regarding instant claims 1-2 and 4:
US 517 discloses a film comprising at least two layers, a first and a second layer, wherein the first layer is formed of a first composition comprising a polyester, and wherein the second layer is formed from a second composition comprising at least a functionalized ethylene-based polymer inclusive of an MAH-grafted polymer and an ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer (Claims 1 and 6).
Said first layer is construed to meet the claimed “barrier” layer.
Said second layer composed of at least an ethylene-based polymer inclusive of an MAH-grafted polymer is construed to meet the claimed “adhesive” layer.
US 517 further discloses that the ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer has a melting point less than 130°C (paragraph [0066]).
US 517 does not explicitly disclose a barrier including one of a thermoplastic polyester elastomer, a copolyamide elastomer, or a combination thereof.
However, Omori discloses a multi-layer laminate comprising at least one layer B comprising a thermoplastic resin composition (paragraph [0008]) containing a polyester type elastomer resin (Claim 12).
Such a thermoplastic resin composition containing a polyester type elastomer is construed to encompass the claimed “unmodified thermoplastic polyester elastomer” within its scope.
Omori teaches that polyester type thermoplastic elastomers have good flexibility, good moldability, and excellent low- and high-temperature characteristics (paragraph [0003]).
Omori provides an exemplary polyester type thermoplastic elastomer having a melting peak temperature of 185°C (paragraph [0087]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to use the polyester type thermoplastic elastomer of Omori as the polyester desired by US 517. The motivation for doing so would have been that Omori recognizes that polyester type thermoplastic elastomers have good flexibility, good moldability, and excellent low- and high-temperature characteristics.
As US 517 discloses that the ethylene/alpha-olefin interpolymer has a melting point less than 130°C and Omori discloses an example polyester type thermoplastic elastomer having a melting peak temperature of 185°C, the prior art combination encompasses an embodiment wherein the gas-tight barrier layer has a melting point higher than the adhesive layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Omori with US 517 to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Regarding instant claim 3:
US 517 discloses specific embodiments using maleic anhydride grafted high density polyethylene having an MAH content of 1.2 wt% and maleic anhydride grafted ethylene-octene copolymer having an MAH content of 0.8 wt% (TABLE 1).\
Regarding instant claim 5 and 16:
US 517 discloses specific embodiments for the second composition comprising maleic anhydride grafted ethylene-octene copolymer and ethylene-octene in amounts ranging from 10:90 to 50:50 wt % (TABLE 3).
Said ethylene-octene meets the claimed alpha-olefin copolymer comprising a C3-C12 alkene (i.e., octene is a C8 alkene).
Regarding instant claims 6-7 and 17:
US 517 discloses specific embodiments for the second composition comprising ethylene-octene copolymer (TABLE 3).
Slevin provides evidence that ethylene-octene copolymers have a Shore D Hardness of no more than about 30 (paragraph [0010]).
Regarding instant claim 8:
The copolyamide elastomer is an optional requirement as set forth by the language of parent claim 1 (i.e., “one of an unmodified thermoplastic polyester elastomer, an unmodified copolyamide elastomer, or a combination thereof” emphasis added).
Therefore, since US 517 in view of Omori positively discloses a gas-tight barrier comprising at least a thermoplastic polyester elastomer, US 517 in view of Omori meets the optional limitations of the instant claim.
Regarding instant claim 9:
US 517 discloses the thickness of the films have a thickness greater than or equal to 50 microns (paragraph [0113]), which overlaps the range recited by the claims; however, “in the case where claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 517 in view of Omori and as evidenced by Sleven, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Keshavaraj et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0075903 A1) (US 903) and Lafaysse et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0298367) (US 367).
Regarding instant claims 10 and 18:
US 517 discloses the two layer film, wherein the first layer (i.e., the claimed barrier layer) has a melting point higher than the second layer (i.e., the claimed adhesive layer).
US 517 further discloses that said films, via the composition of the second layer, exhibit good adhesion to olefin-based polymers and polyamides (paragraph [0187]).
US 517 does not disclose the surface densities of the adhesive and barrier layers.
However, US 903 discloses multi-component films having a barrier layer and an adhesive layer that are in direct contact with a fabric layer, wherein the combination of the fabrics having the multi-layer thereon are used as airbag fabrics (paragraph [0011]).
US 903 requires that the adhesive layer has a melting point that is less than the melting point of the barrier layer, and that the barrier layer has a melting point greater than 150°C (Claims 1 and 7).
US 367 discloses fibrous supports comprising at least two coating layers used in the manufacture of airbags (paragraph [0001]).
US 367 discloses that at least one of the coating layers has a surface density between 1 and 20 g/m2 (paragraph [0020]), which overlaps the ranges recited by the instant claims; however, “in the case where claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” See MPEP § 2144.05.
US 367 further discloses that art-recognized fabrics for airbag applications are inclusive of polyamides (paragraph [0016]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to use the two layer film of US 517 in the airbag fabric of US 903 in an amount such that the both layers have a surface density as prescribed by US 367. The motivation for doing so would have been the two layer film of US 517 meets the desired melting temperature profile desired by US 903 that also shows enhanced adhesive strength to polyamides, such as those fibers known in the art to produce airbag fabrics. Further, the motivation or ensuring the specific surface density would have been that the value disclosed by US 367 is an art recognized parameter for forming adequate polymer coatings on airbag fabrics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine US 903 and US 367 with US 517 in view of Omori as evidenced by Sleven to obtain the invention as specified by the claims.
Claims 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 517 in view of Omori and as evidenced by Sleven, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of US 903.
Regarding instant claims 11 and 13-15:
US 517 in view of Omori discloses the two layer film, wherein the first layer (i.e., the claimed barrier layer) has a melting point of 185°C and is higher than the second layer (i.e., the claimed adhesive layer).
US 517 does not disclose a fabric layer bonded to the multilayer film.
However, US 903 discloses multi-component films having a barrier layer and an adhesive layer that are in direct contact with a fabric layer, wherein the combination of the fabrics having the multi-layer thereon are used as airbag fabrics (paragraph [0011]).
US 903 requires that the adhesive layer has a melting point that is less than the melting point of the barrier layer, and that the barrier layer has a melting point greater than 150°C (Claims 1 and 7).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of the prior art before him or her, to use the two layer film of US 517 in the airbag fabric of US 903. The motivation for doing so would have been the two layer film of US 517 meets the desired melting temperature profile desired by US 903.
The combination of US 517 and US 903 necessarily involves a process of providing a multilayer film and bonding said film to a fabric layer to form an airbag.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine US 903 with US 517 to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claims.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 517 in view of Omori and as evidenced by Sleven in view of US 903 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 367.
Regarding instant claim 12:
US 517 in view of Omori and US 903 discloses a multilayer laminate bonded to a fabric layer to produce an airbag fabric, as cited in the in rejection of claim 11.
US 517 in view of Katsuki and US 903 does not disclose the composition of the fabric layer.
However, US 367 discloses that art-recognized fabrics for airbag applications are inclusive of polyamides and polyesters (paragraph [0016]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use the polyamide or polyester fabrics of US 367 in the airbag material of US 903 in view of US 517. The motivation for doing so would have been that such materials are recognized in the art for the formation of airbag materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine US 367 with US 517 in view of Omori and US 903 to obtain the invention as specified by the instant claim.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,059,871 (US 871). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the narrower scope of the claims of US 871 fall within the scope of the broader claims of the instant application.
With regard to the nonstatutory double patenting rejections of record, Applicant holds the rejection in abeyance until allowable subject matter is identified. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Answers to Applicant’s Arguments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, the rejection over the prior art of record is adjusted. Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art of record are fully considered, but are unpersuasive.
Applicant traverses the rejection based on the combination of Oner in view of Omori. Specifically Applicant cites the combination of claims 1 and 11-12 of Omori, as reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
331
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant alleges that claim 12 of Omori does immediately and necessarily require the presence of the unsaturated acid modification of the polyester type thermoplastic elastomer.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. The composition of Omori’s layer B is relied upon in the prior art rejection. As set forth in the combination of claims 1 and 11-12 of Omori cited by Applicant, above, layer B comprises “a thermoplastic resin composition other than the composition comprising an ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer and a modified polyester type thermoplastic elastomer… wherein the other thermoplastic resin constituting the layer B comprises a polyester, a thermoplastic resin composition containing the polyester, a polyester type elastomer resin” (emphasis added). The claimed thermoplastic resin comprising the polyester type elastomer resin is construed to meet the claimed unmodified thermoplastic polyester elastomer as the scope of the claim is construed to encompass an unmodified type.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas A Mangohig whose telephone number is (571)270-7664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Eastern.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571)272-1490. 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.
/TAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1788 03/17/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788