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.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schledjewski et al. (US 6,524,712) in view of Osanai et al. (JPH 09221640), Meltzer et al. (US 8,273,845) and Xia et al. (CN 204712422).
Regarding claim 1, Schledjewski teaches multilayer films, which may be formed by coextrusion methods, comprising at least one first layer of thermoplastic polyurethane (“a first thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) glue layer”), at least one second layer of a thermoplastic elastomer, and optionally a third layer of thermoplastic polyurethane which may be the same as the first layer (“a third TPU glue layer”) (Col. 2, Lines 17-25; Col. 5, Lines 29-37). The first and the third films are further taught to have a Shore A hardness of 70 to 95 (Col. 2, Line 55). Additionally, the films are desirably used in closed-filled articles which are formed from art-recognized thermoforming processes yielding multilayer sheets including co-extrusion methods (Col. 5, Lines 42-58; Col. 5, Lines 29-37).
As discussed above, the first layer and the third layers are formed from the same compositions. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that identical compositions have identical properties, including flow values. As such, the difference between flow values of the first layer and the second layer would be identical to the different in flow values between the second layer and the third layer.
Schledjewski is silent with respect to the second layer having a shore hardness of from 40A to 70A. However, Schledjewski teaches the combination of a softer thermoplastic elastomer with a thermoplastic polyurethane provides the films with desired flexibility and mechanical strength (Col. 1, Lines 5-15; Col. 4, Lines 26-32).
Meltzer teaches soft, hydrophobic, semi-crystalline, thermoplastic polyurethane compositions which have a shore A hardness of 40 to 70 (Col. 1, Lines 11-15). The compositions provide a softer feel to users and when provided with a harder substrate further provides a strength necessary for the articles such as protective coatings (Col. 1, Lines 26-38; Col. 2, Lines 3-34). The compositions are further taught to have melting points of at least 90°C (Col. 3, Lines 29-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the second thermoplastic elastomer layer of Schledjewski, which is taught to be softer than the first thermoplastic polyurethane layer, such that the second layer is formed from the soft polyurethane compositions with a shore hardness from 40A to 70A and a melting point of at least 90°C such that including this softer layer combined with the harder layer provides a softer feel in combination with desired strength as taught by Meltzer. Furthermore, the lower limit of the resulting second TPU layer is lower than the lower limits of the first and third TPU layers rendering the limitation of “a lower limit of the hardness of the second TPU glue layer is less than a lower limit of the hardness of the first TPU glue layer and a lower limit of the hardness of the third TPU glue layer” as obvious.
Schledjewski is silent with respect to the melting point of the second thermoplastic elastomer layer being higher than the first and third TPU layers.
Osanai teaches a hot melt adhesive obtained by hot molding a thermoplastic polyurethane resin which has low temperature flexibility and adhesive strength (Paragraph [0001]). The hardness of the adhesives is between 65 and 90 in order to provide sufficient film formation and flexibility (Paragraph [0013]). The initial flow temperature of the adhesives is between 80 and 150°C for sufficient film formation and desirable adhesiveness (Paragraph [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the first and third layers to have an initial flow temperature of between 80 and 150°C for sufficient film formation and desirable adhesiveness as taught by Osanai. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the range of 80 and 150°C includes values from 80 to 89°C which is lower than the melting point of the second TPU layer of 90°C or greater as taught by Meltzer rendering the limitation of “a melting point of the second TPU glue layer is higher than a melting point of the first TPU glue layer and a melting point of the third TPU glue layer” as obvious.
Schledjewski is silent with respect to the first, second and third layers being formed such that the water content is less than 300 ppm.
Xia teaches methods of improving TPU raw materials (Paragraph [0002]). The formation of TPU is preferably done to have a water content of less than 500 ppm in order to prevent the water content from having a significant impact on product performance (Paragraph [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the first, second and third layers, formed from thermoplastic polyurethane, to have water contents of less than 500 ppm in order to prevent impact on product performance utilizing TPU as taught by Xia.
Regarding claim 2, Schledjewski teaches the multilayer films as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Schledjewski is silent with respect to the multilayer films having a processing temperature of 100-150°C.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that identical structures formed from identical methods would have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
As discussed above, the combination of Schledjewski, Osanai and Meltzer teaches the final structure of the elastic hot glue of claim 1. Furthermore, as discussed above, Schledjewski teaches the formation of the multilayer films through co-extrusion methods and the instant specification teaches the same (See Embodiment 1).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the identical materials/methods of the combination of Schledjewski, Osanai, and Meltzer and applicant’s invention would result in identical properties, including having a processing temperature of 100-150°C.
Regarding claim 3, Schledjewski teaches the multilayer films as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Schledjewski is silent with respect to the multilayer films having a hardness of 40-80 A.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that identical structures formed from identical methods would have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
As discussed above, the combination of Schledjewski, Osanai and Meltzer teaches the final structure of the elastic hot glue of claim 1. Furthermore, as discussed above, Schledjewski teaches the formation of the multilayer films through co-extrusion methods and the instant specification teaches the same (See Embodiment 1).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the identical materials/methods of the combination of Schledjewski, Osanai, and Meltzer and applicant’s invention would result in identical properties, including having a hardness of 40-80 A.
Regarding claim 4, Schledjewski teaches the multilayer films as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Schledjewski is silent with respect to the multilayer films having a tensile strength of 40 to 180 kgf/cm2.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that identical structures formed from identical methods would have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
As discussed above, the combination of Schledjewski, Osanai and Meltzer teaches the final structure of the elastic hot glue of claim 1. Furthermore, as discussed above, Schledjewski teaches the formation of the multilayer films through co-extrusion methods and the instant specification teaches the same (See Embodiment 1).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the identical materials/methods of the combination of Schledjewski, Osanai, and Meltzer and applicant’s invention would result in identical properties, including having a tensile strength of 40 to 180 kgf/cm2.
Regarding claim 5, Schledjewski teaches the multilayer films as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Schledjewski is silent with respect to the multilayer films having an elongation of 800 to 1200%.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that identical structures formed from identical methods would have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
As discussed above, the combination of Schledjewski, Osanai and Meltzer teaches the final structure of the elastic hot glue of claim 1. Furthermore, as discussed above, Schledjewski teaches the formation of the multilayer films through co-extrusion methods and the instant specification teaches the same (See Embodiment 1).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the identical materials/methods of the combination of Schledjewski, Osanai, and Meltzer and applicant’s invention would result in identical properties, including having an elongation of 800 to 1200%.
Regarding claim 6, Schledjewski teaches the multilayer films as discussed above with respect to claim 1. The films have a thickness of 50 to 600 microns (0.05 to 0.6 mm) (Col. 5, Lines 22-28).
Regarding claim 7, Schledjewski teaches the multilayer films as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Schledjewski is silent with respect to the multilayer films having a peeling strength between 3000 cN and 6000 cN after 25 cycles of washing and drying at 60°C.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that identical structures formed from identical methods would have identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
As discussed above, the combination of Schledjewski, Osanai and Meltzer teaches the final structure of the elastic hot glue of claim 1. Furthermore, as discussed above, Schledjewski teaches the formation of the multilayer films through co-extrusion methods and the instant specification teaches the same (See Embodiment 1).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the identical materials/methods of the combination of Schledjewski, Osanai, and Meltzer and applicant’s invention would result in identical properties, including having a peeling strength between 3000 cN and 6000 cN after 25 cycles of washing and drying at 60°C.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-10, applicant argues that the combination of Schledjewski, Osanai, Meltzer and Xia fails to teach the amendment to claim 1 requiring “wherein a difference in flow values between the second TPU layer and the first TPU layer is the same as a difference in flow values between the second TPU layer and the third TPU layer.” None of the cited references mentions a difference between flow values.
The examiner is unpersuaded by applicant’s arguments and contends that the amendment fails to overcome the rejection in view of the references above. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the first and third TPU layers are formed from identical materials, they would have identical properties, including those relating to flow values. As such, both the first and third TPU layers would have an identical difference in flow values from the second TPU layer. This is taught by Schledjewski such that the first and third layers may be formed from the same composition (Col. 2, Lines 11-25). Therefore, the examiner contends that the identical compositions of the first and third layers of Schledjewski would ultimately teach the limitation of a difference in flow values between the second TPU layer and the first TPU layer is the same as a difference in flow values between the second TPU layer and the third TPU layer as required by the instant claims.
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 DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights