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
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, 9-14, 16-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/173191 to Lin, with US Pub. No. 2022/0169806 cited as the English equivalent, in view of “Bio-based Polyamides” to Feldmann.
Regarding claims 1, 9-14, 16-18, and 20-22, Lin teaches bio-based elastomer composition and film with high moisture permeability, and a bio-based elastomer film and a laminate therefrom, comprising 5%-95% bio-based elastomer material (Lin, Abstract). Lin teaches that the bio-based elastomer is preferably a bio-based nylon elastomer material (Id., paragraph 0016). Lin teaches a laminate comprising at least one layer of the bio-based elastomer film, at least one layer of a thermoplastic resin product which is a textile fiber and/or nonwoven, and an adhesive layer formed by a glue located between the film and the product (Id., paragraphs 0039-0043). Lin teaches that the moisture permeability of the film can be above 100,000 g/m2·24h (Id., paragraph 0026) and that the laminate has a moisture permeability of 25,000 g/m2·24h or more (Id., paragraph 0048). Lin teaches that the one or more layers of textile fibers can be nylon (Id., paragraph 0046).
Lin does not appear to specifically teaches the claimed fibers comprising at least 15% of bio-based carbon and the film comprising nylon 11. However, Feldmann teaches that bio-based polyamides have been around since the middle of the 20th century, which can wholly or partially consist of renewable resources (Feldmann, page 94). Feldmann teaches that that completely or partially bio-based types exists, including PA 11 having a bio content of 100% (Id., page 95, Table 3.1). Feldmann teaches that the bio content has direct influence on the reduction of excess carbon dioxide emission, which shows a lower global warming potential (Id., page 95).
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 laminate of Lin, wherein the nylon film and fibers comprise bio-based polyamide 11 having a bio content of 100%, as taught by Feldmann, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional laminate formed from a polyamide known in the art to predictably reduce excess carbon dioxide emission while consisting of renewable resources.
Regarding the claimed air permeability, average weight and hydrostatic head, the prior art combination teaches a film thickness of preferably 2-30 µm, such as 20 µm, and bio-based nylon 11 as claimed (Lin, paragraphs 0026, 0055). Additionally, Lin teaches that the film is waterproof (Id., paragraph 0009), and formed by a casting process (Id., paragraph 0029). Note that Lin does not teach the inclusion of pores. Since the prior art combination teaches the claimed bio-based nylon 11 and a thickness of 20µm, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the average weight of the film and the hydrostatic head of the laminate would naturally flow from the teachings of the prior art combination. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art combination teaches a laminate comprising at least one film layer discontinuously bonded to a textile with an adhesive. The prior art combination teaches that the weight of the fiber product can be 1-500 g/m2, and the weight of the adhesive is preferably above 0.1 g/m2 (Lin, paragraphs 0047, 0049). Additionally, as set forth above, the prior art combination appears to establish the weight of the film. 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 laminate of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the weight of the adhesive, such that laminate comprises less than 10 wt% adhesive, as suggested by Lin, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional laminate comprising a suitable amount of adhesive to bond the layers while maintaining air and moisture permeability.
Regarding claims 14 and 17, the prior art combination teaches that a laminate comprises at least one layer of film and at least one layer of fabric. Additionally, Lin teaches that the laminate is used in various fields including clothing (Lin, paragraph 0050).
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 laminate of the prior art combination, wherein the laminate additionally includes a second bio-based nylon fabric, as suggested by Lin, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional laminate comprising a suitable structure where additional fabric layers are desirable.
Claims 1, 9-14, 16-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/173191 to Lin, with US Pub. No. 2022/0169806 cited as the English equivalent, in view of “Bio-based Polyamides” to Feldmann and US Pub. No. 2005/0075028 to Rock
Regarding claims 1, 9-14, 16-18, and 20-22, the teachings of the prior art set forth above are incorporated herein. Regarding the claimed air permeability and average weight, the prior art combination appears to teach the claimed properties. Alternatively, Rock teaches a composite fabric garment including a first garment portion and a second garment portion, wherein the first garment portion is formed of a first composite fabric having first inner and outer fabric layers and a first intermediate layer disposed between and boded to at least one of the first inner and outer fabric layers, the first intermediate barrier layer being breathable and substantially impermeable to wind and liquid water (Rock, Abstract, paragraphs 0005, 0026). Rock teaches that the second garment portion is formed of a second composite fabric formed of second inner and outer fabric layers, including a second intermediate, breathable, air-permeable barrier layer disposed between and bonded to at least one of the second inner and outer fabric layers (Id.). Rock teaches that the intermediate barrier has a high resistance to wind with relatively low CFM, in the range of about 0 CFM to about 1 CFM for enhanced thermal insulation (Id., paragraphs 0022-0024, 0055, 0067). Rock teaches that the barrier layer includes an adhesive layer or can be an adhesive, such as a polyamide, applied at between about 0.25 oz/yd2 and about 2.5 oz/yd2 (Id., paragraphs 0065-0066, 0069).
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 laminate of the prior art combination, wherein the film has an air permeability and weight, such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Rock, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional laminate comprising properties known in the art as being predictably suitable for garments, where wind resistance, thermal insulation, and suitable barrier properties are desired.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art combination teaches a laminate comprising at least one film layer discontinuously bonded to a textile with an adhesive. Additionally, as set forth above, the prior art combination teaches that the barrier layer includes an adhesive layer or can be an adhesive, such as a polyamide. 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 laminate of the prior art combination, wherein the adhesive comprises polyamide, as taught by Rock, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional laminate comprising an adhesive known in the art to predictably bond layers in a similar composite.
Regarding claims 14 and 17, the prior art combination teaches that a laminate comprises at least one layer of film and at least one layer of fabric. Alternatively, 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 laminate of the prior art combination, wherein the laminate additionally includes a second bio-based nylon fabric, as suggested by Rock, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional laminate comprising a garment structure known in the art as providing comfort and protection when worn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot based on the new ground of rejection.
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 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
Prosecution Insights