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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 February 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21, 24-25, and 28-30 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the bead layer including a plurality of discrete bead segments including a first concentration of bead segments defined by intersecting bead segments on a first area of the interior surface and a second concentration of bead segments on a second area of the interior surface, the first concentration of bead segments greater than the second concentration of bead segments” in lines 5-9. The initial disclosure does not have support for this limitation. The instant specification discusses that the bead segments may form intersections (See the instant specification Par. 0046). The instant specification further, broadly discusses that the bead layer may have a first area with a first concentration of bead segments that is higher than a second concentration of bead segments at a second area (See the instant specification Par. 0046 and 0076-0077). However, the instant specification does not discuss the first area of the bead layer with the higher concentration of bead segments being defined by intersecting bead segments. Therefore, the initial disclosure does not provide support for the claim 21 limitation.
Claims 24-25 and 28-30 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, since these claims depend from the claims rejected above and do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 21, 24-25, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langvin et al. (US 20200375308 A1) (previously cited) in view of Chang et al. (US 20200299513 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Langvin teaches a bladder for a wearable article, the bladder comprising: a first barrier sheet including a first surface and a second surface disposed on an opposite side from the first surface, and a second barrier sheet including a third surface and a fourth surface disposed on an opposite side from the third surface and attached to the second surface of the first barrier sheet to define a chamber (Langvin, Abstract, Par. 0031-0032, 0048-0049, and Figs 3A-8). Langvin teaches the barrier sheets may include multiple layers (Langvin, Par. 0049).
Langvin is silent regarding a bead layer disposed on at least one of the second surface or the fourth surface within the chamber and including a plurality of discrete bead segments each defining a continuous span of bead material extending between terminal ends, intersections, and turns that act as tensile elements along the at least one of the second surface or the fourth surface to control stretching of the first barrier sheet and the second barrier sheet, the bead layer including a first concentration of bead segments on a first area and a second concentration of bead segments on a second area, the first concentration of bead segments being greater than the second concentration of bead segments, and the first area being more resistant to deformation than the second area.
Chang teaches a bladder for a wearable article, the bladder comprising: a sheet having an interior and an exterior surface defining a chamber (Chang, Abstract, Par. 0002, 0108, 0110, 0113, and 0123-0125 and Fig. 10C). Chang teaches a bead layer (printed layer) disposed on the interior surface of the sheet within the chamber (Chang, Abstract, Par. 0005-0007, 0009, 0094, 0103-0110, 0123-0125 and Fig. 10C). Chang teaches the bead layer can include a plurality of bead segments (plurality of print layers) that vary in size and location and can represent a number, letter, symbol, design, emblem, graphic mark, icon, logo, or the like (Chang, Par. 0114). Chang thus teaches the bead layer includes a plurality of discrete bead segments each defining a continuous span of bead material extending between terminal ends, intersections, and turns. For purely exemplary purposes, an annotated figure of the number “15” is shown below to show how a bead layer showing the number 15 satisfies the limitation. Chang teaches the bead layer include multiple bead segments in a design and can have a varying thickness along the layer, and thus teaches a first concentration of bead segments in a first area of the chamber and a second concentration of bead segments in a second area of the chamber, wherein the first concentration is greater than or less than the second concentration (Chang, Par. 0104, 0114-0116 and Fig. 10C). Regarding the limitation of the first area being more resistant to deformation than the second area, and the plurality of bead segments acting as tensile elements along the second and/or fourth surface to control stretching of the first and second barrier sheets, 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), see MPEP 2112.01. Chang teaches the bead layer is formed from thermoplastic polyurethane (Chang, Par. 0106-0109), which is the same as the instant invention per the instant specification Par. 0045. Chang further teaches the first area has a higher thickness and thus comprises more material than the second area. This increase in material would inherently exhibit at least some extra resistance from the extra material, and act as a tensile element to at least some degree, controlling the stretching of the sheets, see MPEP 2112.01. This is further shown by the instant specification Par. 0046 which states that the high concentration of bead segments result in increases resistance to stretching or expanding. Therefore, absent objective evidence to the contrary, the first area of Chang would exhibit a higher resistance to deformation than the second area.
PNG
media_image1.png
345
435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Number 15
Regarding the term “bead” in “bead layer” and “bead segments”, it is noted that the instant specification Par. 0051-0054 discusses that the bead layer is a continuous, extruded layer that is formed from beads of material that have been melted and extruded on the barrier sheets. Therefore, the term “bead” refers to a raw material before the layer is formed, and not the material after the layer is formed. The term “bead” in bead layer thus refers to a process of forming the layer (i.e. forming the layer by extruding a bead material). Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (See MPEP 2113). The printed layer structure of the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical or substantially identical to the claimed product-by-process layer structure subjected to the process steps of being extruded from beads, and therefore absent any objective evidence showing to the contrary, the addition of the process limitations of claim 1 does not provide a patentable distinction over the prior art. Therefore, the printed layer of Chang satisfies the claimed bead layer.
Langvin and Chang are analogous art as they both teach bladders for wearable articles comprising a sheet forming a chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have include the printed layer of Chang on the inner surface of Langvin. This would allow for a printed design able to be seen by a user (Chang, Abstract and Par. 0113).
Regarding claims 2-3, modified Langvin teaches the first and second barrier sheets includes a first polymeric material and the bead layer includes a second polymeric material, wherein the first and second polymeric materials are the same material (thermoplastic polyurethane) (Langvin, Par. 0049-0051; Chang, Par. 0106-0109).
Regarding claim 4, modified Langvin teaches the first polymeric material includes a transparent material (Langvin, Par. 0050) and the second polymeric material includes a colored material (Chang, Abstract, Par. 0005-0007).
Regarding claims 5 and 8, modified Langvin teaches the bead layer includes a continuous bead of polymeric material disposed on the second and fourth surfaces (Chang, Par. 0114-0116 and Fig. 10C). Modified Langvin further teaches the bead layer is an extruded bead layer applied to the second and/or the fourth surface (Langvin, Par. 0049 and 0057; Chang, Par. 0138).
Alternatively, regarding the limitation of the bead layer being an extruded bead layer, this is a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (See MPEP 2113). The printed layer structure of the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical or substantially identical to the claimed product-by-process layer structure subjected to the process steps of being extruded from beads, and therefore absent any objective evidence showing to the contrary, the addition of the process limitations of claims 5 and 8 do not provide a patentable distinction over the prior art. Therefore, the printed layer of Chang satisfies the claimed bead layer.
Regarding claim 9, modified Langvin teaches the second surface of the first barrier sheet is attached to the fourth surface of the second barrier sheet to form a web area extending between a first portion of the chamber and a second portion of the chamber, the bead layer being spaced apart from the web area (Langvin, Par. 0031-0032, 0036, 0048, and Figs. 3A-8).
Regarding claim 10, modified Langvin teaches the bead layer can include a plurality of bead layers that form a pattern (number, icon, etc.) (Chang, Par. 0114), and thus teaches a first concentration of bead segments of the bead layer (a first portion of the bead layer) that includes a first pattern (number, icon, etc.) and a second concentration of bead segments of the bead layer (a second portion of the bead layer or a second bead layer) which includes a second pattern (number, icon, etc.) (Chang, Par. 0114).
Regarding claim 21, Langvin teaches a bladder for a wearable article, the bladder comprising: a chamber including a barrier sheet comprising a first polymeric material that is thermoplastic polyurethane and has an exterior surface and an interior surface, the interior surface defining a closed volume of fluid (Langvin, Abstract, Par. 0031-0033, 0048-0051, and Figs 3A-8). Langvin teaches the barrier sheet may include multiple layers (Langvin, Par. 0049).
Langvin is silent regarding a bead layer comprising the first polymeric material disposed directly on at least a portion of the interior surface of the barrier sheet, the bead layer including a plurality of discrete bead segments including a first concentration of bead segments defined by intersecting bead segments on a first area of the interior surface and a second concentration of bead segments on a second area of the interior surface, the first concentration of bead segments being greater than the second concentration of bead segments, and the first area being more resistant to deformation than the second area.
Chang teaches a bladder for a wearable article, the bladder comprising: a sheet having an interior and an exterior surface defining a chamber (Chang, Abstract, Par. 0002, 0108, 0110, 0113, and 0123-0125 and Fig. 10C). Chang teaches a bead layer (printed layer) disposed directly on the interior surface of the sheet within the chamber (Chang, Abstract, Par. 0005-0007, 0009, 0094, 0103-0110, 0123-0125 and Fig. 10C). Chang teaches the bead layer comprises thermoplastic polyurethane and thus comprises the first polymeric material (Chang, Par. 0106-0109). Chang teaches the bead layer may include a plurality of bead layers and thus teaches a plurality of distinct bead segments (Chang, Par. 0114). Chang teaches the bead layer include multiple bead segments in a design such as a number, icon, etc., and can have a varying thickness along the layer, and thus teaches a first concentration of bead segments defined by intersecting bead segments (see, for example, the annotated number ‘15’ above) in a first area of the chamber and a second concentration of bead segments in a second area of the chamber, wherein the first concentration is greater than the second concentration (Chang, Par. 0104, 0114-0116 and Fig. 10C). Regarding the limitation of the first area being more resistant to deformation than the second area, 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), see MPEP 2112.01. Chang teaches the bead layer is formed from thermoplastic polyurethane (Chang, Par. 0106-0109), which is the same as the instant invention per the instant specification Par. 0045. Chang further teaches the first area has a higher thickness and thus comprises more material than the second area. This increase in material would inherently exhibit at least some extra resistance from the extra material, see MPEP 2112.01. This is further shown by the instant specification Par. 0046 which states that the high concentration of bead segments result in increases resistance to stretching or expanding. Therefore, absent objective evidence to the contrary, the first area of Chang would exhibit a higher resistance to deformation than the second area.
Regarding the term “bead” in “bead layer” and “bead segments”, it is noted that the instant specification Par. 0051-0054 discusses that the bead layer is a continuous, extruded layer that is formed from beads of material that have been melted and extruded on the barrier sheets. Therefore, the term “bead” refers to a raw material before the layer is formed, and not the material after the layer is formed. The term “bead” in bead layer thus refers to a process of forming the layer (i.e. forming the layer by extruding a bead material). Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (See MPEP 2113). The printed layer structure of the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical or substantially identical to the claimed product-by-process layer structure subjected to the process steps of being extruded from beads, and therefore absent any objective evidence showing to the contrary, the addition of the process limitations of claim 1 does not provide a patentable distinction over the prior art. Therefore, the printed layer of Chang satisfies the claimed bead layer.
Langvin and Chang are analogous art as they both teach bladders for wearable articles comprising a sheet forming a chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have include the printed layer of Chang on the inner surface of Langvin. This would allow for a printed design able to be seen by a user (Chang, Abstract and Par. 0113).
Regarding claim 24, modified Langvin teaches the first polymeric material includes a transparent material (Langvin, Par. 0050).
Regarding claim 25, modified Langvin the bead layer can include multiple portions in a design and thus teaches a first portion of the bead layer and a second portion of the bead layer oppose each other within the chamber (Chang, Par. 0114-0116 and Fig. 10C).
Regarding claim 28, Langvin teaches the bead layer is an extruded bead layer applied to the interior surface (Langvin, Par. 0049 and 0057; Chang, Par. 0138). Alternatively, regarding the limitation of the bead layer being an extruded bead layer, this is a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (See MPEP 2113). The printed layer structure of the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical or substantially identical to the claimed product-by-process layer structure subjected to the process steps of being extruded from beads, and therefore absent any objective evidence showing to the contrary, the addition of the process limitations of claim 28 does not provide a patentable distinction over the prior art. Therefore, the printed layer of Chang satisfies the claimed bead layer.
Regarding claim 29, Langvin teaches a web area extending between a first portion of the chamber and a second portion of the chamber, the bead layer being spaced apart from the web area (Langvin, Par. 0031-0032, 0036, 0048, and Figs. 3A-8).
Regarding claim 30, modified Langvin teaches the bead layer can include a plurality of bead layers that form a pattern (number, icon, etc.) (Chang, Par. 0114), and thus teaches a first concentration of bead segments of the bead layer (a first portion of the bead layer) that includes a first pattern (number, icon, etc.) and a second concentration of bead segments of the bead layer (a second portion of the bead layer or a second bead layer) which includes a second pattern (number, icon, etc.) (Chang, Par. 0114).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed 24 February 2026 have been fully considered.
On pages 5-8 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Chang does not disclose a bead layer made of discrete segments bounded by terminal ends, intersections, and turns. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
Chang teaches the bead layer (print layer) can include a plurality of print layers that vary in location, and thus teaches a plurality of discrete print segments (i.e. a plurality of discrete bead segments) (Chang, Par. 0114). Chang further teaches that the bead segments can represent a number, letter symbol, design, emblem, graphic mark, icon, logo, or the like (Chang, Par. 0114). Different designs, such as numbers, would result include terminal ends, intersections, and turns, see for example the annotated number ‘15’ above. Chang thus teaches a bead layer made of discrete segments (plurality of print layers varying in location) bounded by terminal ends, intersections, and turns, satisfying the claim 1 limitations. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Secondly, on pages 5 and 8 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Chang does not teach discrete, intersecting bead segments as required by claim 21. This is not found persuasive for the following reason:
Chang teaches the bead layer (print layer) can include a plurality of print layers that vary in location, and thus teaches a plurality of discrete print segments (i.e. a plurality of discrete bead segments) (Chang, Par. 0114). Chang further teaches that the bead segments can represent a number, letter symbol, design, emblem, graphic mark, icon, logo, or the like (Chang, Par. 0114). Different designs, such as numbers, would result include intersections in the design, see for example the annotated number ‘15’ above. Chang thus teaches a bead layer made of discrete segments that form intersections satisfying the claim 21 limitations. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights