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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 13 October 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3 – 14, 16, 18 – 20, 22, and 31 – 33 remain pending in the application.
Claim 43 is a new claim commensurate in scope with claim 1 and therefore is under consideration.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner’s interpretations set forth in the Office Action mailed 30 July 2025 under the header “Claim Interpretation” are maintained herein to the extent consistent with Applicant’s amendment submitted 13 October 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites the limitation “the second side of the epoxy adhesive” in l. 18 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The examiner notes this limitation in claim 20 appears to a copy of a similar feature recited in claim 1 which defines first and second sides of the epoxy adhesive. Accordingly, the examiner recommends revision of claim 20 to include similar language from claim 1 for the sides of the epoxy adhesive.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 depends directly on claim 20. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. Accordingly, claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the same reasons as claim 20.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3 – 14, 16, 18 – 20, 22, 30, 33, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liggett (US 2009/0220726 A1) in view of Bullock (US 2016/0046795 A1), Duggal (US 2017/0174298 A1), Higuchi (EP 0,042,582 A1), and Mazany (US 2014/0134355 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liggett discloses a seam tape, component material, or accessory material for an inflatable product, the seam tape, component material, or accessory material (“seam cover tape” for “inflated structures” where the “inflated structure” comprises “flexible laminate hull materials” which may be “fabric panels”, e.g. “seam cover tape” 20a: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0001], [0008] – [0038]) comprising:
a substrate of a multi-layer flexible composite, the substrate comprising a first side and a second side (“second layer”, e.g. “at least one polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) layer” 34: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0009], [0010], [0021], [0023], [0031]); and
an adhesive having a first side and a second side, wherein the adhesive is an outermost layer of the seam tape, component material, or accessory material on the first side, wherein the adhesive is configured to adhere the seam tape, component material, or accessory material to a fabric or flexible composite material of the inflatable product (“adhesive layer”, e.g. “adhesive layer” 30: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0021] – [0023], [0028], [0029]);
a first film layer in contact with the second side of the adhesive and positioned on the first side of the substrate (“at least one highly reflective metal-coated polyimide layer” 32: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0021], [0023], [0030], [0031]);
a first adhesive layer positioned between the substrate and the first film layer (“intervening adhesive layers”: e.g. ¶ [0032]);
a second film layer positioned on the second side of the substrate (another “at least one polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) layer” 34 or “at least one second PVDF layer” 36: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0009], [0010], [0021], [0023], [0024], [0030], [0031]); and
a second adhesive layer in contact with the second side of the substrate (“intervening adhesive layers”: e.g. ¶ [0032]).
The claimed recitation of a component material or an accessory material does not convey structure to the claimed product. Accordingly, Liggett’s “seam cover tape” is observed to meet the claim recitations for each of a seam tape, a component material, and an accessory material. The examiner finds this consistent with the instant specification in light of at least Liggett’s disclosure wherein the “seam cover tape” can be used as a patch (e.g. ¶ [0017]), where patches are considered component materials or accessory materials in the instant specification (e.g. ¶¶ [0042], [0141]).
Although Liggett does not specifically state the seam tape, component material, or accessory material is for an inflatable safety product, as noted previously, this is a statement of intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the seam tape, component material, or accessory material can be used in an inflatable safety product.
However, to this end, Liggett generally discloses the seam tape, component material, or accessory material is used with “inflated structures” (e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0008], [0015], [0016], [0018]). Although Liggett does not explicitly state said “inflated structures” are “safety” products as required of claim 1, the examiner observes the term “safety” does not impart structure to the claim and therefore does not limit claim 1. However, for convenience reference hereafter, Liggett’s inflatable products will be referred to as inflatable safety products.
Although Liggett is not explicit as to the seam tape, component material, or accessory material comprising (I) the substrate of a flexible composite or fabric material, the substrate comprising a first side and a second side, wherein the substrate comprises polyamide or polyethylene fibers, filaments, tows, yarns, or threads, (II) the adhesive being an epoxy adhesive which is curable simultaneously on the first film layer and on the fabric or flexible composite material via heating the epoxy adhesive, (III) the inflatable safety product (for which the seam tape, component material, or accessory material is for) comprising an inflatable evacuation slide, inflatable evacuation slide/raft, inflatable evacuation ramp, inflatable evacuation slide/ramp, inflatable life raft, inflatable helicopter float, or inflatable life vest, (IV) the seam tape, component material, or accessory material comprising a peel strength of at least 5 pounds/inch and a shear strength of at least 175 pounds/inch, (V) the first adhesive layer being cured to physically couple the first film layer and the substrate, (VI) the second adhesive layer is cured to physically coupled the second film layer and the substrate, and (VII) an outermost metal layer contacting the second film layer wherein the outermost metal layer comprises a first side and a second side, the first side faces away from the substrate, and wherein the second side is in contact with the second film layer, these features would have been obvious in view of Bullock, Duggal, Higuchi, and Mazany.
With respect to (I), MPEP § 2143, I, A, states the following regarding combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results:
To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference;
(2) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). "[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to (1), as noted previously, Liggett discloses a multi-layer flexible composite comprising, e.g., a polyvinylidene fluoride layer (e.g. ¶¶ [0021], [0023], [0031]), but does not explicitly state a multi-layer flexible composite having a substrate comprising polyamide or polyethylene fibers, filaments, tows, yarns, or threads. Bullock identifies polyethylene, e.g. in a fabric of fibers, as an equivalent material to polyvinylidene fluoride as a material for forming substrates in inflatable products (e.g. ¶ [0013]).
With respect to (2), Liggett allows the multi-layer flexible composite to comprise more layers than those depicted (e.g. ¶¶ [0021], [0023]), thus permitting the inclusion of layers which can alternatively be considered a substrate. Additionally, Bullock identifies multi-layer flexible composites or fabric materials comprising a substrate (e.g. Fig. 1; ¶ [0013]). Accordingly, Liggett and Bullock provide a means to combine polyvinylidene fluoride and polyethylene fibers in a manner where both the polyvinylidene fluoride and polyethylene fibers structurally contribute to the substrate of the inflatable product.
With respect to (3), Duggal notes polyethylene, e.g. as a fabric of fibers, has an advantage in terms of tensile strength which is useful for inflatable safety products as the weight can be reduced without losing strength (e.g. ¶¶ [0034] – [0038]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have observed a predictable result in adding polyethylene fibers to the multi-layer flexible composite Liggett discloses, namely an increase on tensile strength.
With respect to (4), Liggett discloses the seam tape, component material, or accessory material should be “designed in such a manner to match and/or mirror the performance and/or appearance” of the inflatable safety product (e.g. ¶ [0019]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have observed a seam tape, component material, or accessory material made of the same material as the remainder of the inflatable safety product, or at least a material similar thereto, would exhibit the best matching and/or mirroring of performance and/or appearance. Thus, while the discussion in (1) – (3) relates to the substrate of the inflatable safety product, Liggett’s discussion of matching and/or mirroring performance would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the seam tape, component material, or accessory material with similar features.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Liggett’s multi-layer flexible composite to comprise a substrate of polyethylene fibers as Bullock and Duggal suggest, the motivation being to increase the tensile strength of the seam tape, component material, or accessory material.
With respect to (II), MPEP § 2143, I, B, states the following regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results:
To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to (1), as noted above, Liggett discloses a seam tape, component material, or accessory material but is not explicit as to the adhesive being an epoxy adhesive.
With respect to (2), Liggett discloses the adhesive closes gaps at a seam line between adjacent panels in an inflatable product functions and therefore reduces and/or eliminates gas leakage thereat (e.g. ¶¶ [0019], [0026], [0028], [0037]). Bullock discloses epoxy adhesive serve this purpose (e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0030], especially ¶ [0022] for the disclosure of epoxy adhesive).
Higuchi discloses an inflatable raft whose parts are adhered using an epoxy adhesive curable via heating (e.g. Fig. 4 – 14; p. 2, l. 14, to p. 3, l. 7; p. 3, l. 15, to p. 8, l. 14). Given Higuchi’s inflatable raft is folded for storage and therefore requires flexibility to transition between the folded and unfolded states when an emergency requiring use of the raft arises (e.g. p. 5, ll. 9 – 12; p. 8, ll. 4 – 8), one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Higuchi’s epoxy adhesive must be compatible with these properties.
With respect to (3) and (4), Liggett discloses examples of adhesives for the purpose of closing gaps at a seam line in inflatable products (e.g. ¶¶ [0029], [0033], [0037]) but is not limited to those species recited. Additionally, Liggett’s disclosure generally applies to inflated structures which require flexibility (e.g. ¶¶ [0008], [0015], [0018], [0019]). Given the properties Higuchi requires of their epoxy adhesive, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered an epoxy adhesive with properties as Bullock and Higuchi disclose for use with Liggett’s seam tape, component material, or accessory material. Additionally, because Higuchi’s epoxy adhesive cures via heating, it follows that any adhesion between the first film layer and the target fabric or flexible composite material Liggett discloses would occur simultaneously as the heat is necessary to complete the adhesion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute Liggett’s adhesive for an epoxy adhesive which is curable simultaneously on the first film layer and on the fabric or flexible material composite material via heating the epoxy adhesive as Bullock and Higuchi suggest. The rationale for such a substitution is that said substitution yields predictable results, i.e. an alternative seam tape, component material, or accessory material with desirable reduction and/or elimination of gas leakage.
With respect to (III), as examples of an inflatable product, Liggett and Bullock relate to lighter-than-air vehicles and similar platforms, e.g. those need to reflect solar energy or otherwise manage thermal energy (Liggett: e.g. ¶¶ [0008], [0015], [0016], [0018] – [0021]; Bullock: e.g. ¶¶ [0020] – [0022], [0026], [0028]). Furthermore, Liggett and Bullock each seek to minimize unwanted leaks within the inflatable product (Liggett: e.g. ¶¶ [0019], [0021], [0024], [0027]; Bullock: e.g. ¶¶ [0022], [0028]).
Similar to Liggett and Bullock, Duggal notes inflatable safety products, e.g. inflatable evaluation slides and the like, exhibit the ability to reflect solar energy and do not leak air when inflated (e.g. ¶¶ [0003] – [0051]). Higuchi relates to similar inflatable safety products, e.g. inflatable rafts (e.g. Fig. 4 – 14; p. 2, l. 14, to p. 3, l. 7; p. 3, l. 15, to p. 8, l. 14). Given the ability of Liggett and Bullock to retain helium, which Bullock notes is the smallest gas, within an inflated structure (Liggett: e.g. ¶¶ [0018], [0021], [0030], [0031]; Bullock: e.g. ¶¶ [0012], [0020] – [0026], [0028], [0029]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood structures as Liggett and Bullock note would benefit inflatable safety products as Duggal and Higuchi disclose. That is to say, without maintaining air within the inflatable safety product, the inflatable safety products Duggal and Higuchi disclose cannot maintain their function imperative in the emergency uses such products are designed for. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to employ a seam tape as Liggett and Bullock disclose with an inflatable safety product, e.g. an inflatable evacuation slide or inflatable life raft, as Duggal and Higuchi disclose, in order to improve the air-holding ability thereof.
With respect to (IV), Duggal discloses a peel strength of at least 5 pounds/inch and a shear strength of at least 175 pounds/inch are desirable for slides as contributing features to maximizing strength-to-weight ratio and thus low overall weight (e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0005], [0007], [0008], [0018], [0036], [0038]).
Given Liggett (e.g. ¶¶ [0019], [0025]) and Bullock (e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0029]) also find low weight desirable of the seam tape, component material, or accessory material, it would have been obvious to modify the seam tape, component material, or accessory material such that it has a peel strength of at least 5 pounds/inch and a shear strength of at least 175 pounds/inch as Duggal suggests in order to maximize the strength-to-weight ratio and also minimize the overall weight.
With respect to (V) and (VI), the examiner observes the discussion highlighted with respect to (II) above similarly applies to the first and second adhesive layers because the same properties are required in order for the seam tape, component material, or accessory material to function as required. Since Bullock and Higuchi have been previously established to provide a curable adhesive conducive to such properties, e.g. flexibility, for the same motivations discussed with respect to (III), it would have been obvious for the first adhesive layer to be cured to physically couple the first film layer and the substrate and for the second adhesive layer is cured to physically coupled the second film layer and the substrate.
With respect to (VII), Mazany discloses inflatable safety products comprising a fabric substrate and an outermost metallic layer comprising a first side and a second side, wherein the first side faces away from the fabric substrate, in order to provide heat resistance, e.g. from fires, to add protection for air retention layers (e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0007] – [0027], especially ¶ [0023]).
As noted previously, the substrate as modified in view of Bullock and Duggal comprises, among other things, a fabric. As also noted previously, Liggett notes seam tapes, component materials, and accessory material advantageously comprise similar materials to the remainder of the inflatable safety product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the seam tape, component material, or accessory material to comprise a metallic layer having a first side and a second side, wherein the first side faces away from the substrate and the second side is in contact with the second film layer, the motivation being to improve heat resistance, e.g. with respect to fire.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Liggett discloses the fabric or flexible composite material of the fabric or flexible composite material of the inflatable safety product comprises a metallic layer (the coating of a “metal-coated polyimide layer”, e.g. the coating of a “metal-coated polyimide layer” 58: e.g. Fig. 3; ¶¶ [0027] – [0029]).
Per the modifications discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, it follows the epoxy adhesive adheres the seam tape, component material, or accessory material to the metallic layer.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 3, Liggett discloses the metallic layer is covered by an exterior layer to prevent, e.g., damage of the metallic layer (“PVDF outer layer” 56: e.g. Fig. 3; ¶¶ [0019], [0021], [0031]; ¶¶ [0021] and [0031] identify PVDF as preventing damage of the metal in the “seam cover tape”, but ¶ [0019] discloses properties of the “seam cover tape” and the “flexible laminate hull materials” of the “inflatable product” are matched and thus damage prevention properties would be shared).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 3, Liggett discloses the metallic layer is covered by an exterior layer to prevent deterioration of the fabric or flexible composite material due to hydrolysis (“polyurethane material” which “repels water” to prevent ingress of water and thus is considered to prevent deterioration: e.g. ¶ [0032]).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 3, Liggett discloses the metallic layer is covered by an exterior layer to promote adhesion to the metallic layer (“intervening adhesive layers”: e.g. ¶ [0032])
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 3, Liggett discloses the metallic layer is covered by an exterior layer to improve a durability of the metallic layer (“PVDF outer layer” 56: e.g. Fig. 3; ¶¶ [0019], [0021], [0031]; ¶¶ [0021] and [0031] identify PVDF as providing UV and ozone protection of the metal in the “seam cover tape”, but ¶ [0019] discloses properties of the “seam cover tape” and the “flexible laminate hull materials” of the “inflatable product” are matched and thus UV and ozone protection properties would be shared).
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Liggett discloses the fabric or flexible composite material of the inflatable safety product comprises a non-metallic surface (“PVDF outer layer” 56: e.g. Fig. 3; ¶¶ [0019], [0021], [0031]).
Per the modifications discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, it follows the epoxy adhesive adheres the seam tape, component material, or accessory material to the non-metallic surface.
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Liggett discloses the adhesive maintains seam adhesion when exposed to, e.g., a heat source (as would be required to successfully use a “thermally conductive filler” incorporated therein: e.g. ¶ [0033]). Accordingly, when modifying Liggett’s seam tape, component material, or accessory material to use epoxy adhesive as Bullock suggests, it would have been obvious to employ an epoxy adhesive to maintain Liggett’s desired properties.
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Liggett discloses the adhesive is, e.g., solids-based (at a minimum the adhesive should be solid enough so that at the time of heat and/or pressure application used to close a seam the heat and/or pressure initiates flow of the adhesive: e.g. ¶¶ [0026], [0028], [0029]).
In view of the modifications as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, it follows using an epoxy adhesive as Bullock discloses should similarly be, e.g., solids-based.
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Liggett discloses the fabric or flexible composite material of the inflatable safety product comprising, e.g., a metallic surface (the coating of a “metal-coated polyimide layer”, e.g. the coating of a “metal-coated polyimide layer” 58: e.g. Fig. 3; ¶¶ [0027] – [0029]).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Liggett discloses the seam tape, component material, or accessory material comprises an emissivity value of less than 0.5 (“reflect most of the incident solar radiation”, “highly reflective of solar radiation”: e.g. ¶¶ [0006], [0009], [0010], [0021]; emissivity is described in terms of reflection in ¶¶ [0033] and [0053] of the instant specification whereby Liggett’s descriptions of reflection would be understood per the cited range).
Liggett’s emissivity encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Liggett discloses the fabric or flexible composite material of the inflatable safety product comprises an emissivity value of less than 0.5 (the “seam cover tape” “reflect[s] most of the incident solar radiation” or is “highly reflective of solar radiation”: e.g. ¶¶ [0006], [0009], [0010], [0021]; ¶ [0019] discloses properties of the “seam cover tape” and the “flexible laminate hull materials” of the “inflatable product” should be similar, and thus Liggett’s disclosure of reflective properties similarly applies; emissivity is described in terms of reflection in ¶¶ [0033] and [0053] of the instant specification whereby Liggett’s descriptions of reflection would be understood per the cited range).
Liggett’s emissivity encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Liggett discloses the seam tape, component material, or accessory material and the fabric or flexible composite material of the inflatable safety product each comprise an emissivity value of less than 0.5 (the “seam cover tape” “reflect[s] most of the incident solar radiation” or is “highly reflective of solar radiation”: e.g. ¶¶ [0006], [0009], [0010], [0021]; ¶ [0019] discloses properties of the “seam cover tape” and the “flexible laminate hull materials” of the “inflatable product” should be similar, and thus Liggett’s disclosure of reflective properties similarly applies; emissivity is described in terms of reflection in ¶¶ [0033] and [0053] of the instant specification whereby Liggett’s descriptions of reflection would be understood per the cited range).
Liggett’s emissivity encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 16, Liggett discloses an inflatable product (“inflated structures”: e.g. Fig. 1 – 3; ¶¶ [0001], [0008] – [0038]) comprising:
a first panel (a first one of “flexible laminate hull materials” in the form of “one or more fabric panels or sections” joined together to form the “inflated structure”: e.g. Fig. 3; ¶¶ [0019], [0021], [0024], [0026] – [0028]);
a second panel, the first panel and the second panel forming a seam region (a second one of the “flexible laminate hull materials” forming a “seam” with the first one of the “flexible laminate hull materials” which is adjacent thereto: e.g. Fig. 3; ¶¶ [0019], [0021], [0024], [0026] – [0028]);
and the seam tape as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection claim 1, wherein the seam tape joins the first panel and the second panel in the seam region (e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0001], [0008] – [0038]).
As to being an inflatable safety product, as noted in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, although Liggett does not specifically state the seam tape is for an inflatable safety product, this is a statement of intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the seam tape can be used in an inflatable safety product. While Liggett generally discloses the seam tape is used with “inflated structures” (e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0008], [0015], [0016], [0018]) but not specifically to “safety” products, the examiner observes the term “safety” does not impart structure to the claim and therefore does not limit claim 16. For convenience reference hereafter, Liggett’s inflatable products will be referred to as inflatable safety products.
The modifications in view of Bullock, Duggal, Higuchi, and Mazany as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 similarly apply to claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, in addition to the limitations of claim 16, Liggett discloses the first panel, the second panel, and the seam tape each comprise an emissivity value of 0.5 or less (the “seam cover tape” “reflect[s] most of the incident solar radiation” or is “highly reflective of solar radiation”: e.g. ¶¶ [0006], [0009], [0010], [0021]; ¶ [0019] discloses properties of the “seam cover tape” and the “flexible laminate hull materials” of the “inflatable product” should be similar, and thus Liggett’s disclosure of reflective properties similarly applies; emissivity is described in terms of reflection in ¶¶ [0033] and [0053] of the instant specification whereby Liggett’s descriptions of reflection would be understood per the cited range).
Liggett’s emissivity encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 19, Liggett discloses an accessory or component for an inflatable product comprising the accessory or component material as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, wherein the accessory or component is, e.g., a patch (e.g. ¶ [0017]).
The discussion pertaining to an inflatable safety product as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 similarly applies to claim 19 as does the discussion for an epoxy adhesive in view of Bullock.
Regarding claim 20, Liggett discloses a seam tape, component material, or accessory material for an inflatable product, the seam tape, component material, or accessory material (“seam cover tape” for “inflated structures” where the “inflated structure” comprises “flexible laminate hull materials” which may be “fabric panels”, e.g. “seam cover tape” 20a: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0001], [0008] – [0038]) comprising:
a substrate of a flexible composite, the substrate comprising a first side and a second side (the flexible composite at least comprising “second layer” and “third layer”, e.g. “at least one highly reflective metal-coated polyimide layer” 32, “at least one polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) layer” 34, 36: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0009], [0010], [0021], [0023], [0024], [0030], [0031]); and
an adhesive, wherein the adhesive is an outermost layer of the seam tape, component material, or accessory material on the first side, wherein the adhesive is configured to adhere the seam tape, component material, or accessory material to a fabric or flexible composite material of the inflatable product (“adhesive layer”, e.g. “adhesive layer” 30: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0021] – [0023], [0028], [0029]),
wherein the seam tape, component material, or accessory material of the inflatable safety product comprises an emissivity value of less than 0.5 (the “seam cover tape” “reflect[s] most of the incident solar radiation” or is “highly reflective of solar radiation”: e.g. ¶¶ [0006], [0009], [0010], [0021]; ¶ [0019] discloses properties of the “seam cover tape” and the “flexible laminate hull materials” of the “inflatable product” should be similar, and thus Liggett’s disclosure of reflective properties similarly applies; emissivity is described in terms of reflection in ¶¶ [0033] and [0053] of the instant specification whereby Liggett’s descriptions of reflection would be understood per the cited range);
an outside coating on the second side of the substrate opposite from the adhesive, wherein the outside coating is an outermost layer of the seam tape, component material, or accessory material on the second side (“at least one first polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) layer” 34 or “at least one second PVDF layer” 36: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0021], [0023] – [0025], [0031]);
a first film layer in contact with the second side of the adhesive and positioned on the first side of the substrate (“at least one highly reflective metal-coated polyimide layer” 32: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0021], [0023], [0030], [0031]);
a first adhesive layer positioned between the substrate and the first film layer (“intervening adhesive layers”: e.g. ¶ [0032]);
a second film layer in contact with a monolithic metal layer and positioned on the second side of the substrate (another “at least one polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) layer” 34 or “at least one second PVDF layer” 36: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0009], [0010], [0021], [0023], [0024], [0030], [0031]); and
a second adhesive layer positioned between the substrate and the second film layer (“intervening adhesive layers”: e.g. ¶ [0032]); and
the monolithic metal layer that is positioned on the second film layer opposite from the adhesive, wherein the monolithic metal layer is between the outside coating and the substrate (“coating” of another “metal-coated polyimide layer” 32 which is, e.g., “vacuum deposited aluminum or silver”: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0021] – [0023], [0025], [0031]).
The claimed recitation of a component material or an accessory material does not convey structure to the claimed product. Accordingly, Liggett’s “seam cover tape” is observed to meet the claim recitations for each of a seam tape, a component material, and an accessory material. The examiner finds this consistent with the instant specification in light of at least Liggett’s disclosure wherein the “seam cover tape” can be used as a patch (e.g. ¶ [0017]), where patches are considered component materials or accessory materials in the instant specification (e.g. ¶¶ [0042], [0141]).
Additionally, the examiner considers Liggett’s “vacuum deposited aluminum or silver” to constitute a “monolithic” metal layer due to its need to protect polyimide from ultraviolet light and reduce helium permeation (e.g. ¶¶ [0004] – [0006], [0021], [0030], [0031]). Given helium is the smallest gas (Bullock: ¶ [0020]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood eliminating gaps in the metal layer as much as possible would provide a structure best suited for retaining helium. Accordingly, a monolithic metal layer is best suited for this purpose, thus motivating its inclusion even if not explicitly described.
Although Liggett does not specifically state the seam tape, component material, or accessory material is for an inflatable safety product, as noted previously, this is a statement of intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the seam tape, component material, or accessory material can be used in an inflatable safety product.
However, to this end, Liggett generally discloses the seam tape, component material, or accessory material is used with “inflated structures” (e.g. ¶¶ [0001], [0008], [0015], [0016], [0018]). Although Liggett does not explicitly state said “inflated structures” are “safety” products as required of claim 20, the examiner observes the term “safety” does not impart structure to the claim and therefore does not limit claim 20. However, for convenience reference hereafter, Liggett’s inflatable products will be referred to as inflatable safety products.
Although Liggett is not explicit as to the seam tape, component material, or accessory material comprising (I) the substrate of a flexible composite or fabric material, the substrate comprising a first side and a second side, wherein the substrate comprises polyamide or polyethylene, (II) the adhesive being an epoxy adhesive which is curable simultaneously on the first film layer and on the fabric or flexible composite material via heating the epoxy adhesive, (III) the inflatable safety product (for which the seam tape, component material, or accessory material is for) comprising an inflatable evacuation slide, inflatable evacuation slide/raft, inflatable evacuation ramp, inflatable evacuation slide/ramp, inflatable life raft, inflatable helicopter float, or inflatable life vest, (IV) the first adhesive layer being cured to physically couple the first film layer and the substrate, and (V) the second adhesive layer is cured to physically coupled the second film layer and the substrate, these features would have been obvious in view of Bullock, Duggal, Higuchi, and Mazany.
With respect to (I), MPEP § 2143, I, A, states the following regarding combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results:
To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference;
(2) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). "[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to (1), as noted previously, Liggett discloses a multi-layer flexible composite comprising, e.g., a polyvinylidene fluoride layer (e.g. ¶¶ [0021], [0023], [0031]), but does not explicitly state a multi-layer flexible composite having a substrate comprising polyamide or polyethylene. Bullock identifies polyethylene, e.g. in a fabric of fibers, as an equivalent material to polyvinylidene fluoride as a material for forming substrates in inflatable products (e.g. ¶ [0013]).
With respect to (2), Liggett allows the multi-layer flexible composite to comprise more layers than those depicted (e.g. ¶¶ [0021], [0023]), thus permitting the inclusion of layers which can alternatively be considered a substrate. Additionally, Bullock identifies multi-layer flexible composites or fabric materials comprising a substrate (e.g. Fig. 1; ¶ [0013]). Accordingly, Liggett and Bullock provide a means to combine polyvinylidene fluoride and polyethylene in a manner where both the polyvinylidene fluoride and polyethylene structurally contribute to the substrate of the inflatable product.
With respect to (3), Duggal notes polyethylene, e.g. as a fabric of fibers, has an advantage in terms of tensile strength which is useful for inflatable safety products as the weight can be reduced without losing strength (e.g. ¶¶ [0034] – [0038]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have observed a predictable result in adding polyethylene to the multi-layer flexible composite Liggett discloses, namely an increase on tensile strength.
With respect to (4), Liggett discloses the seam tape, component material, or accessory material should be “designed in such a manner to match and/or mirror the performance and/or appearance” of the inflatable safety product (e.g. ¶ [0019]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have observed a seam tape, component material, or accessory material made of the same material as the remainder of the inflatable safety product, or at least a material similar thereto, would exhibit the best matching and/or mirroring of performance and/or appearance. Thus, while the discussion in (1) – (3) relates to the substrate of the inflatable safety product, Liggett’s discussion of matching and/or mirroring performance would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the seam tape, component material, or accessory material with similar features.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Liggett’s multi-layer flexible composite to comprise a substrate polyethylene as Bullock and Duggal suggest, the motivation being to increase the tensile strength of the seam tape, component material, or accessory material.
With respect to (II), MPEP § 2143, I, B, states the following regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results:
To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to (1), as noted above, Liggett discloses a seam tape, component material, or accessory material but is not explicit as to the adhesive being an epoxy adhesive.
With respect to (2), Liggett discloses the adhesive closes gaps at a seam line between adjacent panels in an inflatable product functions and therefore reduces and/or eliminates gas leakage thereat (e.g. ¶¶ [0019], [0026], [0028], [0037]). Bullock discloses epoxy adhesive serve this purpose (e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0030], especially ¶ [0022] for the disclosure of epoxy adhesive).
Higuchi discloses an inflatable raft whose parts are adhered using an epoxy adhesive curable via heating (e.g. Fig. 4 – 14; p. 2, l. 14, to p. 3, l. 7; p. 3, l. 15, to p. 8, l. 14). Given Higuchi’s inflatable raft is folded for storage and therefore requires flexibility to transition between the folded and unfolded states when an emergency requiring use of the raft arises (e.g. p. 5, ll. 9 – 12; p. 8, ll. 4 – 8), one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Higuchi’s epoxy adhesive must be compatible with these properties.
With respect to (3) and (4), Liggett discloses examples of adhesives for the purpose of closing gaps at a seam line in inflatable products (e.g. ¶¶ [0029], [0033], [0037]) but is not limited to those species recited. Additionally, Liggett’s disclosure generally applies to inflated structures which require flexibility (e.g. ¶¶ [0008], [0015], [0018], [0019]). Given the properties Higuchi requires of their epoxy adhesive, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered an epoxy adhesive with properties as Bullock and Higuchi disclose for use with Liggett’s seam tape, component material, or accessory material. Additionally, because Higuchi’s epoxy adhesive cures via heating, it follows that any adhesion between the first film layer and the target fabric or flexible composite material Liggett discloses would occur simultaneously as the heat is necessary to complete the adhesion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute Liggett’s adhesive for an epoxy adhesive which is curable simultaneously on the first film layer and on the fabric or flexible material composite material via heating the epoxy adhesive as Bullock and Higuchi suggest. The rationale for such a substitution is that said substitution yields predictable results, i.e. an alternative seam tape, component material, or accessory material with desirable reduction and/or elimination of gas leakage.
With respect to (III), as examples of an inflatable product, Liggett and Bullock relate to lighter-than-air vehicles and similar platforms, e.g. those need to reflect solar energy or otherwise manage thermal energy (Liggett: e.g. ¶¶ [0008], [0015], [0016], [0018] – [0021]; Bullock: e.g. ¶¶ [0020] – [0022], [0026], [0028]). Furthermore, Liggett and Bullock each seek to minimize unwanted leaks within the inflatable product (Liggett: e.g. ¶¶ [0019], [0021], [0024], [0027]; Bullock: e.g. ¶¶ [0022], [0028]).
Similar to Liggett and Bullock, Duggal notes inflatable safety products, e.g. inflatable evaluation slides and the like, exhibit the ability to reflect solar energy and do not leak air when inflated (e.g. ¶¶ [0003] – [0051]). Higuchi relates to similar inflatable safety products, e.g. inflatable rafts (e.g. Fig. 4 – 14; p. 2, l. 14, to p. 3, l. 7; p. 3, l. 15, to p. 8, l. 14). Given the ability of Liggett and Bullock to retain helium, which Bullock notes is the smallest gas, within an inflated structure (Liggett: e.g. ¶¶ [0018], [0021], [0030], [0031]; Bullock: e.g. ¶¶ [0012], [0020] – [0026], [0028], [0029]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood structures as Liggett and Bullock note would benefit inflatable safety products as Duggal and Higuchi disclose. That is to say, without maintaining air within the inflatable safety product, the inflatable safety products Duggal and Higuchi disclose cannot maintain their function imperative in the emergency uses such products are designed for. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to employ a seam tape as Liggett and Bullock disclose with an inflatable safety product, e.g. an inflatable evacuation slide or inflatable life raft, as Duggal and Higuchi disclose, in order to improve the air-holding ability thereof.
With respect to (IV) and (V), the examiner observes the discussion highlighted with respect to (II) above similarly applies to the first and second adhesive layers because the same properties are required in order for the seam tape, component material, or accessory material to function as required. Since Bullock and Higuchi have been previously established to provide a curable adhesive conducive to such properties, e.g. flexibility, for the same motivations discussed with respect to (III), it would have been obvious for the first adhesive layer to be cured to physically couple the first film layer and the substrate and for the second adhesive layer is cured to physically coupled the second film layer and the substrate.
Liggett’s emissivity encompasses the claimed range. “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 22, although Liggett is not explicit as to the emissivity being less than or equal to 0.25, as noted in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 20, Liggett desires a seam tape, component material, or accessory material which reflects most solar radiation to the point of being highly reflective in order to improve thermal management (e.g. ¶¶ [0006], [0009], [0010], [0021]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivation to determine a suitable emissivity.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide an emissivity less than or equal to 0.25 in order to enhance or ensure thermal management.
Regarding claim 33, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Liggett as modified in view of Bullock and Duggal discloses the seam tape, component material, or accessory material further comprises an inner layer between the epoxy adhesive and the substrate, wherein the inner layer is a gas barrier layer (the “at least one polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) layer” 34, 36 as modified in view of Bullock and Duggal can be regarded as the substrate, and the polyimide layer of the “at least one highly reflective metal-coated polyimide layer” 32 can be regarded as the inner layer, polyimide being a gas barrier: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0005], [0021], [0023]).
Regarding claim 37, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Liggett as modified in view of Bullock and Duggal discloses the epoxy adhesive is on the first side of the substrate, wherein the epoxy adhesive is an outmost layer of the seam tape, component material, or accessory material on first second side (e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0021] – [0023], [0028], [0029]), wherein the seam tape, component material, or accessory material further comprises:
an outside coating on the second side of the substrate opposite from the epoxy adhesive, wherein the outside coating is an outermost layer of the seam tape, component material, or accessory material on the second side (the “at least one polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) layer” 34, 36 covers the “at least one highly reflective metal-coated polyimide layer” 32: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0009], [0010], [0021], [0023], [0024], [0030], [0031]); and
a metallic layer on the second side of the substrate opposite from epoxy adhesive, wherein the metallic layer is between the outside coating and the substrate (the metal coating of the “at least one highly reflective metal-coated polyimide layer” 32: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0009], [0010], [0021], [0023], [0024], [0030], [0031]).
Regarding claim 38, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Liggett as modified in view of Bullock and Duggal discloses the epoxy adhesive is on the first side of the substrate, wherein the epoxy adhesive is an outmost layer of the seam tape, component material, or accessory material on first second side (e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0021] – [0023], [0028], [0029]), wherein the seam tape, component material, or accessory material further comprises:
an outside coating on the second side of the substrate opposite from the epoxy adhesive, wherein the outside coating is an outermost layer of the seam tape, component material, or accessory material on the second side (the “at least one polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) layer” 34, 36 covers the “at least one highly reflective metal-coated polyimide layer” 32: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0009], [0010], [0021], [0023], [0024], [0030], [0031]); and
a metallic layer on the second side of the substrate opposite from epoxy adhesive, wherein the metallic layer is between the outside coating and the substrate (the metal coating of the “at least one highly reflective metal-coated polyimide layer” 32: e.g. Fig. 2A, 2B, 3; ¶¶ [0009], [0010], [0021], [0023], [0024], [0030], [0031]); and
an adhesive layer on the second side of the substrate opposite from the epoxy adhesive, wherein the adhesive layer is between the metallic layer and the substrate (e.g. ¶ [0032]).
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liggett, Bullock, Duggal, Higuchi, and Mazany as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dry (US 2015/0056391 A1).
Regarding claim 31, although Bullock and Higuchi are not explicit as to the epoxy adhesive being solvent-based, this feature would have been obvious in view of Dry.
Dry discloses an epoxy adhesive for inflatable safety products, where the epoxy adhesive is optionally solvent-based (“sealant composition”: e.g. ¶¶ [0002] – [0048]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood a solvent, due to its liquid nature, would increase fluidity of the epoxy adhesive. Given Dry discloses embodiments where the solvents have high boiling points, or at least are small in amount if a low-boiling solvent (e.g. ¶ [0026]), there is an understanding that fluidity would be desirable for allowing more flow of the adhesive.
Liggett desires flow properties of the epoxy adhesive when forming an inflatable safety product (e.g. ¶¶ [0028], [0029]), so modifications to improve or ensure this property would have been seen as desirable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to make Bullock’s epoxy adhesive solvent-based as Dry suggests in order to improve or ensure the flow properties Liggett desires are provided.
Regarding claim 32, although Bullock and Higuchi are not explicit as to the epoxy adhesive being solvent-free, this feature would have been obvious in view of Dry.
Dry discloses an epoxy adhesive for inflatable safety products, where the epoxy adhesive is optionally solvent-based (“sealant composition”: e.g. ¶¶ [0002] – [0048]). However, Dry notes the solvents have boiling points (e.g. ¶ [0026]), and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood solvents have a certain volatility associated therewith.
Liggett desires to reduce gas leakage at the seams of an inflatable safety product (e.g. ¶¶ [0019], [0021], [0024], [0027]). Any solvent remaining in an epoxy adhesive after forming the seam tape, component material, or accessory material would be understood to have an outgassing of solvent over time which can create pathways for an inflating gas to escape. In inflatable safety products, such as those Duggal notes, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood the disadvantages of gas leakage, namely as the inflatable safety product would no longer serve its intended purpose.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to make Bullock’s epoxy adhesive solvent-free in order to eliminate the risk of creating leakage which compromises the safety factor of the inflatable safety product.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liggett, Bullock, Duggal, Higuchi, and Mazany as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hou (US 2014/0087198 A1).
Regarding claim 43, although Bullock and Higuchi are not explicit as to the epoxy adhesive being freezable to delay curing simultaneously on the first film layer and on the fabric or flexible composite material, this feature would have been obvious in view of Hou.
Hou states heat-curing epoxies are unstable such that premature cure can occur if not frozen (e.g. ¶ [0004]). In the case of a heat-curing epoxy adhesive as Bullock and Higuchi suggest, premature curing would therefore be understood to result in an epoxy adhesive will not bond the seam tape, component material, or accessory material to the fabric or flexible composite material.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use an epoxy adhesive which is freezable to delay curing simultaneously on the first film layer and on the fabric or flexible composite material, the motivation being to prevent premature curing which would render the epoxy adhesive inoperable to bond the seam tape, component material, or accessory material to the fabric or flexible composite material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 8, filed 13 October 2025, with respect to the objection to claim 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. This objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 10 – 13, filed 28 October 2024, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts Liggett’s PVDF layers are not the same as films nor are arranged as required in claim 1.
However, the examiner finds Liggett’s PVDF layers provide ultraviolet and ozone protection (e.g. ¶¶ [0005], [0021], [0023], [0031]). A film structure would have been understood as the construction of the PVDF layers since a porous structure would provide an easy pathway for ozone attack. Moreover, Bullock addresses this concern for film structures at ¶ [0013] as a suitable form for PVDF layers.
As to the arrangement of layers, Liggett discloses a structure in the order of “adhesive layer” 30/”polyimide layer” 32/“at least one polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) layer” 34 or “adhesive layer” 30/”polyimide layer” 32/ “at least one second PVDF layer” 36. The repetition of layers 34, 36 as Liggett discloses in conjunction with “intervening adhesive layers” (e.g. ¶ [0032]) will therefore present a structure of adhesive/first film layer/first adhesive layer/substrate/second adhesive layer/second film layer. Mazany provides a motivation for the metallic outer layer on the second film layer opposite the second adhesive layer. Bullock and Higuchi address the adhesive being epoxy adhesive.
Hou further notes epoxies being frozen to delay curing as needed for new claim 43.
Accordingly, the examiner presents the rejections herein.
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 ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, Veronica 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights