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 on 4/23/2026 has been entered.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-14, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,015,521 to Fujii in view of USPAP 2005/0043460 to McCormack, USPAP 2017/0129228 to Middlesworth, USPN 5,540,976 to Shawver, USPAP 2003/0049397 to Singer, and/or USPN 6,156,421 to Stopper.
Claims 1, 9-11 and 21, Fujii discloses a vapor-permeable and liquid impermeable (VPLI) microporous film that has a moisture vapor transmission rate (MVTR) of at least about 2000 g/m2/24 hours (see entire document including column 1, line 44 through column 3, line 68 and column 8, lines 62-68). Fujii discloses that the film includes a polymer-phase comprising a blend of (a) from 50 to 100 parts by weight of linear polyethylene (LDPE and/or HDPE), (b) from 0 to 50 parts by weight of one or more non-linear (branched) low density polyethylenes, and (c) from 5 to 30% by weight of one or more ethylene/α-olefin copolymers (see entire document including column 1, lines 8-54, column 2, lines 1-45, column 3, lines 25-68, column 5, lines 14-22, and column 8, lines 62-68). Considering that the applied prior art discloses a substantially identical VPLI film in terms of film materials and thickness, the claimed puncture resistance would be inherent. Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the precise amount of each component based on the intended application and the desired/required product properties.
Fujii does not appear to mention adhesive bonding the film to a non-woven fabric but McCormack and Middlesworth each disclose that it is known in the art to adhesive bond a VPLI film to a non-woven fabric to form a multilayer product suitable for a variety of uses (see entire documents including [0008], [0040], [0090], and [0098]-[0100] of McCormack and [0002], [0037]-[0041], [0071], [0072], and [0094] of Middlesworth). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adhesive bond the film of Fujii to a non-woven fabric for a variety of end product uses.
Claim 2, the nonwoven fabric comprises at least one spunbond layer, at least one meltblown layer, at least one carded layer, or any combinations thereof ([0090] of McCormack and [0094] of Middlesworth).
Clam 3, the nonwoven fabric comprises one or more spunbond layers ([0090] of McCormack and [0094] of Middlesworth).
Claims 4 and 8, the nonwoven fabric has the claimed basis weight ([0090] of McCormack).
Claim 5, the nonwoven fabric includes a plurality of fibers comprising a high density polyethylene, an ethylene/1-octene copolymer, a polypropylene, or a combination thereof ([0099] of McCormack).
Claim 6, McCormack does not appear to mention the nonwoven spunbond fibers comprising a high density polyethylene (HDPE) but Shawver discloses that it is known in the art to use spunbond HDPE nonwoven fabrics (see entire document including column 1, lines 5-47 and column 7, lines 12-51). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the nonwoven fabric from any suitable spunbond fabric material, such as HDPE, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 7, Shawver discloses Dow 25355 and 12350 HDPE which have a melt flow rate (MFR) of from about 5 to about 30 g/ 10 min as determined by ASTM D1238 (190 C°/2.16 kg) (column 7, lines 12-51 of Shawver and [0053] of s).
Claims 8 and 12-14, Fujii discloses a film thickness of between 10 to about 100 microns (column 1, lines 44-54). Fujii does not appear to mention the VPLI microporous film comprising a multi-layer film but Stopper discloses that it is known in the art to construct a VPLI film as a multi-layer film comprising additional film layers, wherein each film layer is a microporous layer with fillers dispersed throughout the same polymeric composition (see entire document including column 1, line 9 through column 2, line 31 and column 5, lines 41-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the film of Fujii with any suitable construction, such as the claimed multi-layer construction, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known construction on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics. Plus, the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 9 and 13, the polymeric composition comprises a filler dispersed throughout the polymer-phase (column 6, lines 11-57).
Claim 20, Fujii discloses an article of protective clothing, comprising a laminate according to claim 1, wherein the article of protective clothing comprises coveralls, gowns, smocks, pants, headwear, and shoe covers (column 8, lines 62-68). Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make clothing in any desired shape, such as claimed, based on the intended use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights