DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11-12, 15, 18, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0061307 Chen et al in view of EP 1 806 061 Tanakorn and further in view of US 2020/0215786 Dorton et al.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a composite laminate 100 (paragraph 0002) comprising:
a substrate layer 1;
a film layer 2 that is a coupled to the substrate layer (paragraph 0006) and that dimensionally transforms when exposed to moisture (paragraph 0030); and
a slit 13 extending entirely through at least the film layer, wherein the slit forms at least part of a through-passage through at least the film layer (figure 3) and wherein one side of the composite laminate is in fluid communication with the other side of the composite laminate through the through-passage (paragraph 0031).
Chen does not teach first and second slits formed such that first and second apexes meet at the intersection. Tanakorn teaches ventilated articles (paragraph 0002) that is formed into clothing (paragraph 0004), where slits are formed that extend though the fabric (paragraph 0006),
wherein the slit is a first slit and said composite laminate further comprises a second slit made through at least said film that intersects the first slit at an intersection to form a first flap with a first apex and a second flap with a second apex, the first apex and the second apex meeting at the intersection (figure 3),
wherein the first slit is disposed on the film such that the first slit is not parallel to the longitudinal or transverse axes of the film (paragraph 0016 teaching an X-shape, distinguished in the text from a “perpendicular-cross,” such that both slits are angled), and
the second slit is disposed on the film such that the second slit is not parallel to the longitudinal or transverse axes of the film (paragraph 0016 teaching an X-shape, distinguished in the text from a “perpendicular-cross,” such that both slits are angled).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to alter the shape of the slits from triangles, semicircles or trapezoids to a perpendicular cross since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). (MPEP 2144.04 Section IV Part B). Therefore, without a showing of criticality, the shape made by the slits does not impart patentability to the claim.
Neither Chen nor Tanakorn explicitly teaches the machine or cross directions. Dorton teaches a ventable material for outdoor wear (paragraph 0001) where the substrate layer 12 is a textile (paragraph 0038) and comprises a machine direction and a cross direction, and the machine direction of the film layer is parallel to the machine direction of the textile (figure 8 and paragraph 0062 discussing production through a machine, which imparts machine and cross directions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the parallel machine and cross directions of Dorton in the product of Chen because this provides for simpler processing.
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches that the first flap transitions from a first position to a second position when the film layer is exposed to moisture (paragraph 0030); and
wherein the through passage is larger when the first flap is in the second position (shown in figure 4) than when the first flap is in the first position (shown in figure 3, paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches that when the first flap is in the second position, the through-passage increases airflow between the first and the second sides of the composite laminate, as compared to when the first flap is in the first position (breathability, paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches that the through-passage decreases in size when moisture is removed from the film layer (paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches that the slit comprises an edge 131 of a portion of the composite laminate; and along the edge, the film layer is at least partially bonded to the substrate layer (figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Tanakorn does not explicit teach that the apexes move to different extents. However, Tanakorn does teach that the apexes move to the same extent (figure 4). Moving to different extents is an obvious variant of moving to the same extent. “[W]here the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 Section IV Part A). Therefore, without a showing of criticality, the different dimensions that would lead to the claimed one of the apexes moving to a larger extent do not impart patentability to the claims.
Regarding claim 12, Chen teaches the composite laminate where the substrate layer is a textile (fabric, paragraph 0006), but does not teach parallel machine directions for the substrate and film layers.
Dorton teaches ventable material for outdoor wear (paragraph 0001) where the substrate layer 12 is a textile (paragraph 0038) and comprises a machine direction and a cross direction, and the machine direction of the film layer is parallel to the machine direction of the textile (figure 8 and paragraph 0062 discussing production through a machine, which imparts machine and cross directions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the parallel machine and cross directions of Dorton in the product of Chen because this provides for simpler processing.
Regarding claim 15, Tanakorn teaches a knitted material (paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the knit fabric of Tanakorn in the product of Chen because knit fabrics provide warmth in cool weather (paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 18, Tanakorn teaches that the first slit and the second slit form an X-shape (paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 31, Chen in view of Tanakorn and Dorton teaches most of the limitations with respect to claim 1 above. Tanakorn further teaches that the first slit is perpendicular to the cross direction of the film, and the second slit is parallel to the cross direction of the film (Figure 3 and paragraph 0016 teaching a perpendicular-cross).
Regarding claim 32, Tanakorn teaches that the first apex and the second apex move to a substantially same extent when the film layer is exposed to moisture (figure 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 8, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that Chen does not teach a film. However, “film” is any thin layer. The recitation of “film” has not been further defined by the specification. Therefore, Chen’s moisture responsive layer 2 reads on “film.”
Second, Applicant argues that Chen and Dorton are not combinable. However, Dorton is used only for the teaching of designating MD and CD. The operation of Chen is not being modified, and therefore, the operation of Dorton is irrelevant to the combination.
Third, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not recognize the advantages of the claimed invention. However, the prior art need not have the same reason as Applicant or recognize the advantages of the invention in order to read on the claim. If Applicant believes that structural advantages are present in the invention that are lacking in the prior art, Applicant may amend the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frank Vineis can be reached on 571-270-1547. 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781