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 .
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification as originally filed does not provide support for the limitation “where said textile is not a woven thermoplastic composite material”.
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 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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0202844 in view of Bonner et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0336333.
Tam discloses thermoplastic tapes which are fabricated into woven fabrics and stacked into a plurality of plies and then consolidated with or without a polymeric binder material, using heat and pressure or other means to form a composite material. See paragraphs 0059-0063, 0071-0072, 0076-0077. The tape layers can comprise polyolefins. See paragraph 0079. Additional polymer layers can be bonded to the surface by means of a thermoplastic adhesive, such as a polyolefin adhesive. See paragraph 0079.
Tam differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose that the additional polymer surface layers can be textiles.
However, Bonner discloses a self-reinforced composite structure. See paragraph 0010. The structure can comprise a polymeric matrix, a fibrous layer and another outer fiber layer, wherein the outer fiber layer can be a woven fabric. See paragraph 0114.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided an outer woven layer on the surface of the structure of Tam, as taught by Bonner in order to provide a fibrous outer layer, depending on how the laminate was intended to be used.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam in view of Bonner as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Avci, WO 2021/183064.
Tam differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose employing a corona treatment.
However, Avci teaches forming a multilayered structure comprising a polyolefin film, a polyolefin scrim or net and an outer polyolefin fabric. The bonding layer can also be polyolefin. See page 6, line 24 through page 7, line 5. Avci teaches that it was known to employ corona treated polyolefin layers to form laminated structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have performed a corona treatment on the bonding layers of Tam in order to provide a stronger bonded structure.
Applicant's amendments filed 8/13/25 are sufficient to overcome the previous rejection because neither Tam nor Liu teach an outer woven fabric layer. A new grounds of rejection is set forth above in view of the amended claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 PM.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789