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 § 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.
Claim 33 is 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 33 recites, “the substrate comprises a plurality of non-woven filaments” in lines 1-2. Claim 33 depends from claim 1 which recites, “the substrate comprising… …a plurality of woven filaments” in lines 3-4. There is no support in the specification for a substrate comprising both woven and non-woven filaments in the same embodiment.
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.
Claim 33 is 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.
Claim 33 recites, “the substrate comprises a plurality of non-woven filaments” in lines 1-2. Claim 33 depends from claim 1 which recites, “the substrate comprising… …a plurality of woven filaments” in lines 3-4. Does the substrate comprise non-woven filaments in addition to woven filaments? Is the substrate a woven fabric or a non-woven fabric? It is not clear if both are required, especially since the specification does not provide support for an embodiment including both woven and non-woven filaments. The Examiner will interpret a substrate comprising woven filaments as meeting the requirements of claim 33.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 13, 16-20, 24-25, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannigan et al. (US 2006/0029759) (Hannigan) in view of Jordan et al. (US 2019/0085200) (Jordan) and Federal Aviation Administration (TSO-C69, Emergency Evacuation Slides).
Regarding claim 1
Hannigan teaches a coated woven fabric for an aircraft escape slide airbeam. The fabric inherently comprises opposite surfaces. The fabric comprises a plurality of woven filaments defining internal gaps and voids. The fabric coating renders the fabric non-permeable. The coated fabric is void-free. The coated fabric possesses a total weight after coating of not more than 6 oz/yd2. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0051], [0063], [0118], [0123], [0128], and claims 15 and 18-19.
It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Since the fabric coating renders the fabric non-permeable and the fabric is void-free, it follows the coating corresponds to a filling material filling and sealing the internal gaps and voids of the fabric and the fabric surfaces comprises a monolithic structure of the coating and the fabric.
Hannigan does not explicitly teach presence of a gas barrier layer and intermediate layer (A) or the tensile strength and tear strength of the coated fabric (B).
With respect to the difference, Jordan (A) teaches applying an elastic gas barrier coating to a substrate of an emergency slide. The elastic gas barrier coating provides low temperature elasticity and good oxygen/nitrogen gas barrier performance. The adhesion of the gas barrier coating is improved by applying an adhesive coating layer to the substrate. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0003], [0014], [0128], [0130-0131], [0148-0152], and [0164-0165].
Jordan and Hannigan are analogous art as they are both drawn to inflatable life rafts.
In light of the motivation as provided by Jordan, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a gas barrier layer to the surface of the coated fabric of Hannigan and an intermediate adhesive layer between the coated fabric and the gas barrier layer of Hannigan, in order to provides low temperature elasticity and good oxygen/nitrogen gas barrier performance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Given the gas barrier layer is applied to the surface of the coated fabric of Hannigan in view of Jordan, it follows the coating, i.e., corresponding to the filling material, is in contact with the fabric surface and the gas barrier layer.
With respect to the difference, the Federal Aviation Administration (B) sets forth the minimum performance standards inflatable evacuation slides must meet to be considered TSO marked. Coated fabrics must have a tensile strength of at least 190 lbs/in and a tear strength of 13 lbs/in. See, e.g., see page 1.
TSO-C69 and Hannigan in view of Jordan are analogous art as they are both drawn to inflatable evacuation slides.
In light of the disclosure as set forth by TSO-C69, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the encapsulated fabric of Hannigan in view of Jordan such that the encapsulated fabric possesses a tensile strength of at least 190 lbs/in and a tear strength of 13 lbs/in, in order to produce a life raft that meets the TSO standard and is competitive with other TSO standard rated life rafts on the market, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5
Hannigan further teaches the fabric comprises polyester, aramid, and polyamide. Paragraphs [0118-0119].
Regarding claims 13, 16, 24-25, and 31
Hannigan teaches the fabric coating renders the fabric non-permeable, wherein the coating comprises polyurethane or polyether polyurethane. The coated fabric is void-free. Paragraphs [0051], [0118-0119], [0123], [0128], and claims 15 and 18-19. Given the fabric is rendered non-permeable and void-free, it follows the coating restricts air or gas from traveling through the fabric along the fabric plane and perpendicular to the fabric plane.
Regarding claim 17
The limitation “the fabric composite maintains gas-holding properties when a film covering a surface of the fabric is punctured” defines the coated by what it does, rather than what it is. This is a functional limitation, and therefore was not evaluated on its own, but in conjunction with the remainder of claim 17. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Given the coated is non-permeable, if follows the fabric maintains gas-holding properties when a film covering a surface of the coated fabric is punctured.
Regarding claims 18-19
Henderson further teaches the fabric is a gas-holding fabric. Paragraphs [0010-0011], [0034-0035], and [0125].
Regarding claims 19-20
Henderson further teaches the fabric is an inflatable escape slide. Paragraphs [0119] and [0129] and claim 20.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannigan et al. (US 2006/0029759) (Hannigan) in view of Jordan et al. (US 2019/0085200) (Jordan) and Federal Aviation Administration (TSO-C69, Emergency Evacuation Slides), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Henderson et al. (US 2012/0040109) (Henderson).
Regarding claim 2
Hannigan in view of Jordan and FAA teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach the presence of a film covering a surface of the fabric.
With respect to the difference, Henderson teaches a fabric for an inflatable structure, such as an aircraft emergency escape slide, comprising a double sided polymer encapsulation and a film overlaid on each side. The benefit of overlaying a film on each side of the coated fabric is the reduced chance of pinholes lining up providing an air path all the way through both films, as shown in FIG. 4. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0032] and [0042].
Henderson and Hannigan in view of Jordan and FAA are analogous art as they are both drawn to composite fabrics for inflatable structures, such as emergency escape slides.
In light of the motivation as provided by Henderson, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply a film on each side of the coated fabric of Hannigan in view of Jordan and FAA, in order to reduce the chances of pinholes lining up providing an air path all the way through both films, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Hannigan et al. (US 2006/0029759) (Hannigan) in view of Jordan et al. (US 2019/0085200) (Jordan) and Federal Aviation Administration (TSO-C69, Emergency Evacuation Slides), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Berrang (US 2020/0139665).
Regarding claims 3-4
Hannigan in view of Jordan and FAA teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Hannigan does not explicitly teach the fabric comprising polyethylene or UHMWPE.
With respect to the difference, Berrang teaches a woven UHMWPE fabric for use in non-porous and air impermeable applications, such as inflatable structures. UHMWPE fabric has a number of desirable qualities, as it is lightweight and resistant to wear, impact, and abrasion. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0002] and [0013].
Berrang and Hannigan in view of Jordan and FAA are analogous art as they are both drawn to composites for inflatable structures.
In light of the motivation as provided by the later filed Berrang, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a UHMWPE fibers in the fabric substrate of Hannigan in view of Jordan and FAA, in order to provide a lightweight and resistant to wear, impact, and abrasion substrate, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannigan et al. (US 2006/0029759) (Hannigan) in view of Jordan et al. (US 2019/0085200) (Jordan) and Federal Aviation Administration (TSO-C69, Emergency Evacuation Slides), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Tu et al. (Numerical investigation of heat transfer and fluid motion in air inflatable textiles: Effect of thickness, surface emissivity and ambient temperature) (Tu).
Regarding claim 8
Hannigan in view of Jordan and FAA teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach the emissivity of the encapsulated fabric.
With respect to the difference, Tu teaches the effect surface emissivity has on heat flux and heat resistance of air inflatable textiles. Tu studied a polyacrylate coated fabric with low emissivity (0.3) and found lower surface emissivity can effectively suppress the thermal radiation and increases thermal insulation in air inflatable textiles. See, e.g., abstract and page 3, right column, lines 11-13; page 7, right column, line 4 – page 8, right column, line 1; page 11, left column, lines 9-11; page 11, left column, line 26 – page 11, right column, line 1; and FIG. 6 and 9.
Tu and Hannigan in view of Jordan and FAA are analogous art as they are both drawn to air inflatable textiles.
In light of the disclosure of Tu, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the surface emissivity of the coated fabric of Hannigan in view of Jordan and FAA, including over the claimed range, such as 0.3, in order to suppress thermal radiation and increase thermal insulation in air inflatable textiles, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannigan et al. (US 2006/0029759) (Hannigan) in view of Jordan et al. (US 2019/0085200) (Jordan) and Federal Aviation Administration (TSO-C69, Emergency Evacuation Slides), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Miller (US 4,654,098).
Regarding claims 10-12
Hannigan in view of FAA teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach a metallic layer at least partially covering the surface.
With respect to the difference, Miller teaches an inflatable structure which is substantially reflective of radiant heat energy and resistant to destruction by such heat energy. The structure possesses an inflatable portion comprising a flexible air impermeable fabric possessing an outer face which is substantially reflective of radiant heat energy. The flexible air impermeable fabric possesses a metallic coating carrying heat reflective metallic particles. The heat reflective metallic particles are aluminum. The flexible air impermeable fabric is able to withstand a radiant heat flux of 2.0 B.T.U./ftsq-sec for at least 180 seconds while retaining adequate structure and air holding (inflation) integrity. Col. 2, lines 50-57, col. 3, lines 1-20, col. 4, lines 44-53, claim 5 and FIG. 2. As shown in FIG. 2, the metallic coating completely covers the surface of the flexible air impermeable fabric.
Miller and Hannigan in view of Jordan and FAA are analogous art as they are both drawn to fabric composites for inflatable structures, such as inflated slides.
In light of the motivation as provided by Miller, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a metallic coating comprising aluminum particles to the surface of the encapsulated fabric of Hannigan in view of Jordan and FAA, such that the encapsulated fabric is able to withstand a radiant heat flux of 2.0 B.T.U./ftsq-sec for at least 180 seconds while retaining adequate structure and air holding (inflation) integrity, in order to ensure the encapsulated fabric reflects radiant heat energy and is resistant to destruction by radiant heat energy, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannigan et al. (US 2006/0029759) (Hannigan) in view of Jordan et al. (US 2019/0085200) (Jordan) and Federal Aviation Administration (TSO-C69, Emergency Evacuation Slides), as applied in claim 1 above, Joshi et al. (Polyurethane nanocomposites based gas barrier films, membranes, and coatings: A review on synthesis, characterization and potential applications).
Regarding claim 22
Hannigan in view of Jordan and FAA teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Hannigan teaches the coating comprises polyurethane. Paragraphs [0119-0120]. However, Hannigan does not explicitly teach the coating reducing the substrate’s helium permeability to 10 liters per square meter in 24 hours at 77ºF.
With respect to the difference, Joshi teaches gas barrier coatings comprising polyurethane are known in the art. Helium gas permeability of polyurethane can be controlled by various factors including the ratio of two different polyols, increasing crosslinking density, decreasing chain length between cross linking points, and adding nanomaterials such as nanoclay and graphene See, e.g., abstract and page 236, lines 15-19, page 237, lines 17-26, page 274, lines 7-24, and page 276, lines 37-49, and FIG. 9.
Joshi and Hannigan in view of Jordan and FAA are analogous art as they are both drawn to gas barrier coatings comprising polyurethane.
In light of the disclosure of Joshi, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art modify the various known factors that control helium gas permeability of the polyurethane coating of Hannigan in view of Jordan and FAA, in order to produce an inflatable structure possessing an effective helium permeability, including over the claimed range of 10 liters per square meter in 24 hours at 77ºF or less, with predictable success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art , and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannigan et al. (US 2006/0029759) (Hannigan) in view of Jordan et al. (US 2019/0085200) (Jordan) and Federal Aviation Administration (TSO-C69, Emergency Evacuation Slides), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Berrang (US 2020/0139665), taken in view of evidence provided by Trentacosta et al. (US 2013/0283578) (Trentacosta).
Regarding claims 32
Hannigan in view of Jordan and FAA teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, including the coated fabric having a weight of not more than 6 oz/yd2. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Hannigan does not explicitly teach the yarn tenacity of the fabric.
With respect to the difference, Berrang teaches a woven UHMWPE fabric for use in non-porous and air impermeable applications, such as inflatable structures. UHMWPE fabric has a number of desirable qualities, as it is lightweight and resistant to wear, impact, and abrasion. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0002] and [0013].
Berrang and Hannigan in view of Jordan and FAA are analogous art as they are both drawn to composites for inflatable structures.
In light of the motivation as provided by Berrang, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a UHMWPE fabric as the fabric substrate of Hannigan in view of Jordan and FAA, in order to provide a lightweight and resistant to wear, impact, and abrasion substrate, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. In view of evidence provided by Trentacosta, UHMWPE possesses a tenacity of greater than about 8 g/denier. Paragraph [0047]. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Claim 32 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannigan et al. (US 2006/0029759) (Hannigan) in view of Jordan et al. (US 2019/0085200) (Jordan) and Federal Aviation Administration (TSO-C69, Emergency Evacuation Slides), as applied in claim 1 above, and in further view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0182676) (Kim).
Regarding claims 32
Hannigan in view of Jordan and FAA teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, including the coated fabric having a weight of not more than 6 oz/yd2 and the use of polyester fibers. Paragraph [0118]. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Hannigan does not explicitly teach the yarn tenacity of the fabric.
With respect to the difference, Kim teaches an inflatable fabric comprising a polyester yarn possessing a tenacity of 9.0 grams/denier or more. When the tenacity is below this range, breakage due to external impact and deformation caused by maintenance of the folded state may easily occur. In addition, a higher weaving density must be used to prevent breakage, therefore increasing manufacturing cost. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0012-0018].
Kim and Hannigan in view of Jordan and FAA are analogous art as they are both drawn to inflatable products.
In light of the motivation as provided by Kim, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a polyester yarn possessing a tenacity of 9.0 grams/denier or more as the material of the fabric of Hannigan in view of Jordan and FAA, in order to reduce breakage due to external impact and deformation caused by maintenance of the folded state as well as reduce manufacturing cost, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannigan et al. (US 2006/0029759) (Hannigan) in view of Jordan et al. (US 2019/0085200) (Jordan).
Regarding claim 26
Hannigan teaches a coated woven fabric for an aircraft escape slide airbeam. The fabric inherently comprises opposite surfaces. The fabric comprises a plurality of woven filaments defining internal gaps and voids. The fabric coating renders the fabric non-permeable. The coated fabric is void-free. The coated fabric possesses a total weight after coating of not more than 6 oz/yd2. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0051], [0063], [0118], [0123], [0128], and claims 15 and 18-19.
It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The fabric inherently comprises a first side and a second side, wherein a distance form the first side to the second side a thickness of the fabric, and wherein the fabric defines a fabric plane extending in a direction perpendicular to the thickness. Since the fabric coating renders the fabric non-permeable and the fabric is void-free, it follows the coating corresponds to a filling material filling and sealing the internal gaps and voids of the fabric, the fabric surfaces comprises a monolithic structure of the coating and the fabric, and the coating prevents gas from travelling through the fabric along the fabric plane.
Hannigan does not explicitly teach presence of a gas barrier layer and intermediate layer.
With respect to the difference, Jordan teaches applying an elastic gas barrier coating to a substrate of an emergency slide. The elastic gas barrier coating provides low temperature elasticity and good oxygen/nitrogen gas barrier performance. The adhesion of the gas barrier coating is improved by applying an adhesive coating layer to the substrate. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0003], [0014], [0128], [0130-0131], [0148-0152], and [0164-0165].
Jordan and Hannigan are analogous art as they are both drawn to inflatable life rafts.
In light of the motivation as provided by Jordan, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a gas barrier layer to the surface of the coated fabric of Hannigan and an intermediate adhesive layer between the coated fabric and the gas barrier layer of Hannigan, in order to provides low temperature elasticity and good oxygen/nitrogen gas barrier performance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Given the gas barrier layer is applied to the surface of the coated fabric of Hannigan in view of Jordan, it follows the coating, i.e., corresponding to the filling material, is in contact with the fabric surface and the gas barrier layer.
Regarding claim 27
Hannigan further teaches the fabric comprises polyester, aramid, and polyamide. Paragraphs [0118-0119].
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duggal et al. (US 2018/0002862) (Duggal), taken in view of evidence provided by Trentacosta et al. (US 2013/0283578) (Trentacosta).
Regarding claims 28-29
Duggal teaches a nonwoven flexile composite for an inflatable safety product. The nonwoven composite comprises a plurality of non-woven filaments, an adhesive to bind the filaments, and a coating on the surface of the substrate of the nonwoven material. The nonwoven substrate inherently comprises a first side and a second side opposite of the first side, wherein the substrate defines a substrate plane extending in a direction parallel to a direction from the first side to the second side of the substrate. The nonwoven substrate possesses a weight of about 2 to about 7 ounces per square yard. The nonwoven substrate comprises filaments made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE). As shown in FIG. 2A-2B, the filaments of the nonwoven substrate define a plurality of voids and gaps between the first and second side and the adhesive, corresponding to the filling material, fills and seals the voids and gaps of the substrate. The coating on the surface of the substrate of the nonwoven material provides a gas barrier, corresponding to a gas barrier layer. As shown in FIG. 2A-2B, the gas barrier layer is contact with the adhesive. The nonwoven composite further includes an adhesive layer applied to the filaments. The adhesive layer corresponds to an intermediate layer. The adhesive bonds with the polyurethane layer in order to cause the material to become an integral, one-piece, or otherwise monolithic, single construction of material that is cross-linked that will not delaminate from itself. As shown in FIG. 2B, the substrate plane comprises a monolithic structure of the adhesive and the substrate. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0009-0013], [0018-0019], [0034], [0036-0037], [0043], [0045], [0047-0058], and FIGS. 2A-2B.
The limitation “the filling material restricts gas from travelling through the substrate along the substrate plane” defines the filling material by what it does, rather than what it is. This is a functional limitation, and therefore was not evaluated on its own, but in conjunction with the remainder of claim 28. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Given the adhesive fills and seals the gaps and voids of the nonwoven substrate, if follows the filling material restricts gas from travelling through the substrate along the substrate plane.
In view of evidence provided by Trentacosta, UHMWPE possesses a tenacity of greater than about 8 g/denier. Paragraph [0047]. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claim 30
Duggal teaches all of the limitations of claim 28 above, including the filling material restricts gas from travelling through the substrate along the substrate plane. Duggal further teaches the nonwoven flexible composite further comprises a film covering at least one of the first or the second side of the substrate. Paragraph [0034]. The limitation “the flexible composite maintains gas-holding properties when the film is punctured” defines the flexible by what it does, rather than what it is. This is a functional limitation, and therefore was not evaluated on its own, but in conjunction with the remainder of claim 30. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Given the flexible composite includes the gas barrier coating layer and the adhesive filling and sealing the gaps and voids of the nonwoven substrate, if follows the flexible composite maintains gas-holding properties when the film is punctured.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
In view of the amendments to the claims, specifically the requirement “the monolithic structure comprises a weight less than 5.5 ounces/yd2” in claim 1 and claim 26 and the requirement “the plurality of non-woven filaments” in claim 28, it is agreed the previous do not meet the presently claimed. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn. However, the amendment necessitates a new set of rejections, as set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 8, 9-13, 16-20, 22, and 24-33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds 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 CHRISTINE X NISULA whose telephone number is (571)272-2598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:00.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/C.X.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789