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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 4, 2025, 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 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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2019/0160782 to Harding in view of US Pub. No. 2019/0049044 to Rastogi.
Regarding claims 1-21, Harding teaches a polyethylene sheet and articles made therefrom, comprising a non-fibrous oriented polyethylene monolayer comprising ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) having a viscosity average molecular weight of 2,000,000 or greater (Harding, Abstract). Harding teaches a cross-plied tape comprising a plurality of monolayers, wherein “monolayer” refers to UHMWPE film products having a thickness of between 0.02 mm and 0.102 mm (Id., paragraphs 0010, 0019). Harding teaches that the UHMWPE tapes comprise two monolayers of polyethylene oriented film (Id., paragraph 0046). Harding teaches that the cross-plied tape comprising a plurality of monolayers, and optionally an adhesive, wherein the adhesive further comprises a textile layers which may be a scrim or nonwoven fabric (Id., paragraphs 0030-0031, Figs. 1-3C). Harding teaches that the laminate may further comprise at least one layer of continuous filament fibers embedded in a matrix resin, wherein the fibers are provided in the form of a woven, knitted, or non-woven fabric and include p-aramid fibers (Id., paragraph 0042). Harding teaches that suitable adhesives include polyethylene and ethylene copolymers (Id., paragraph 0038).
Harding teaches that the sheet is suitable for use in an impact penetration resistant laminate (Harding, paragraph 0001), but does not appear to teach the claimed elongate tubular body and the claimed properties of the layers. However, Rastogi teaches a hollow article made of UHMWPE tapes and a resin, having a high flexural modulus in combination with a high flexural strength and low weight (Rastogi, Abstract, paragraph 0005, claim 8), suited for sports articles or sports equipment (Id., paragraph 0042). Rastogi teaches that the UHMWPE tapes have a weight average molecular weight of at least 500,000 g/mol (Id., paragraph 0023), a tensile strength of least 1.5 GPa, and a modulus of at least 150 GPa determined in accordance with ASTM D822-00 (Id., paragraph 0024). Rastogi teaches that the layers may form a cross-ply, wherein the tapes have a thickness of less than 0.5 mm (Id., paragraphs 0044-0045). Rastogi teaches that the resin may be a polyethylene resin having a melting point below the melting point of the UHMWPE (Id., paragraphs 0050-0053). Rastogi teaches that the hollow article is made of stacked sheets, and that the pipe-like article may comprise an outer sheath or cover which covers the tape or sheet of tapes entirely (Id., paragraphs 0046-0054). Rastogi teaches that the inner layers of tapes cover the whole length (Id., paragraph 0067) and that if desired, a smooth inner surface of the hollow article can be obtained by melting the tapes of the inner layer (Id., paragraph 0077). Note that a melted inner layer of UHMWPE tapes would entail a thermoplastic elongated tubular body and would comprise a thermoplastic material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the polyethylene sheet of Harding, for use in combination with a hollow article including a melted inner layer and an outer cover, wherein the layers comprise properties, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Rastogi, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional polyethylene sheet comprising cross-plied UHMWPE tapes for use in a known and predictable manner where high flexural modulus in combination with a high flexural strength and low weight are desirable.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the prior art combination teaches that the monolayer film products have a thickness of between 0.02 mm and 0.102 mm, or less than 0.5 mm (Harding, paragraphs 0010, 0019; Rastogi, paragraphs 0044-0045). Note that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the prior art combination teaches a viscosity average molecular weight of 2,000,000 or greater (Harding, Abstract) or a weight average molecular weight of at least 500,000 g/mol (Rastogi, paragraph 0023). It is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the weight average molecular weight reasonably correlates with a number average molecular weight, such as within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 8-19 and 21, the prior art combination teaches adhesives including polyethylene and ethylene copolymers, or polyethylene resin having a melting point below the melting point of the UHMWPE, or at least one layer of continuous filament fibers embedded in a matrix resin, wherein the fibers are provided in the form of a woven, knitted, or non-woven fabric and include p-aramid fibers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the polyethylene sheet of the prior art combination, and including the additional bonding or matrix resin layers, as taught by Harding and Rastogi, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional polyethylene sheet comprising a structure based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art combination.
Regarding claims 10-15 and 21, note that recitation of “configured to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. Since the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, the invention of the prior art combination appears capable of performing the recited functions.
Regarding claim 20, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. However, since the pipe-like hollow article only requires polyethylene, the limitations of the claim appear met (see also Rastogi, claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed November 4, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that there is no teaching or suggestion that cross-plied monolayers or tapes could be wound, wrapped, or otherwise adapted to a tubular geometry, as Harding is wholly concerned with 2-dimensional laminates. Additionally, Applicants argue that because the tubular geometry in Rastogi would be subject to circumferential and axial stresses under internal or external loading, the tape would need to resist hoop stress.
Regarding Applicants’ arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, Harding teaches that the cross-plied tape comprising a plurality of monolayers, and optionally an adhesive, suitable for use in an impact penetration resistant laminate. Although Applicants appear to extrapolate that Harding is directed to 2-dimensional laminates, Harding does not limit the resulting laminates in such a manner. For example, Harding teaches cross-plied tapes which are stacked, wherein the resulting preforms were then molded (Harding, paragraph 0068). Additionally, Rastogi establishes that UHMWPE tapes having similar and overlapping molecular weights and thicknesses as taught by Harding, were known in the art as being suitable for forming a hollow article by molding (Rastogi, paragraph 0077). Since Harding teaches a plurality of monolayers and optionally an adhesive, and since Rastogi teaches stacked sheets of cross-plied tapes, the prior art establishes that the sheets may be formed into a hollow article, such as an elongate tubular body, as claimed. Applicants have not established to the contrary.
Additionally, although Applicants argue that the tubular geometry in Rastogi would be subject to circumferential and axial stresses under internal or external loading, Rastogi does not provide such limitations. Additionally, it is unclear why Applicants argue that the invention of Harding is necessarily limited to a non-tubular geometry, or what limitations would necessarily prevent the invention of Harding from being shaped as taught by Rastogi. Based on the lack of such evidence, and even in light of Applicants’ arguments, Applicants do not establish that the invention of Harding cannot be shaped as claimed.
Applicants argue that Harding’s cross-plied monolayers are designed to maximize stiffness and minimize deformation, and that Harding provides no indication that the planar monolayers or tapes could be adapted to modified for tubular winding, nor that such a modification would yield any predictable benefit. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Harding does not teach Applicants’ conclusion, wherein the monolayers are designed to maximize stiffness and minimize deformation. Additionally, one of ordinary skill would recognize that sheet materials can be shaped to increase the available uses of sheet materials. Such a conclusion is established by Rastogi, wherein cross-plied UHMWPE tapes were known in the art to be layered and suitable for forming hollow articles, such as claimed.
Applicants argue that significant structural and process modifications would be necessary to achieve a functional tubular articles, as Harding’s planar monolayer laminates are processed under flat consolidation conditions, not under helical winding and consolidation as in Rastogi. Additionally, Applicants argue that substantial structural and processing modifications would be required to adapt Harding’s material to a tubular form, including altering the orientation, bonding behavior, and stress response of the monolayers.
Regarding Applicants’ arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Harding does not appear to require that the laminates are necessarily planar, nor require processing under flat consolidation conditions. Additionally, since Harding and Rastogi teach substantially similar structures and compositions, including overlapping average molecular weights and thicknesses, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill would not recognize that the UHMWPE tapes and sheets could be shaped as claimed. Additionally, since Harding and Rastogi teach substantially similar structures and compositions, including overlapping average molecular weights and thicknesses, it is unclear what additional structural and process modifications would be necessary.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786