DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on February 11, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently claim 1 is amended and claims 7-12 and 14 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 1-6 and 13 pending for examination.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (KR 2005-0080213)1,2.
With respect to claims 1 and 3-4, Chang teaches a tarpaulin comprising a polyester or polyolefin woven fabric coated on one or both sides with a copolymer resin in which ethylene vinyl acetate resin and polyolefin resin are mixed at a certain ratio (pages 3 and 8). The composition ratio is 1-100 wt% ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer and 1-99 wt% polyolefin (page 4). The polyolefin may be polyethylene (page 6).
The weight percentage of ethylene vinyl acetate resin and polyethylene resin ranges of Chang substantially overlap the claimed range in the instant claims 1 and 3. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Chang, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
The textile fabric being weldable by high-frequency welding defines the textile fabric 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 1. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Chang teaches the claimed structure as stated in the above rejection, and therefore would be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
With respect to claim 2, Chang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Chang further teaches the vinyl acetate content of the ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer resin (EVA resin) is 0.05-45 wt% (page 4). It is noted that ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer resin (EVA resin) appears to be defined as the blend of ethylene vinyl acetate resin and the polyolefin resin (pages 3, 6, and 7).
If the vinyl acetate content is with respect to the ethylene vinyl acetate resin and not the blend, the content of vinyl acetate in the blend would range from 0.0005-45 wt%.
The weight percentage of vinyl acetate range of Chang substantially overlap the claimed ranges in the instant claim 2. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Chang, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
With respect to claim 5, Chang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Chang further teaches a method of extrusion coating the resin onto the polyester or polyolefin fabric where the resin is coated on the upper side of the fabric which the fabric is wound on a roll as seen in Fig. 3 (pages 6-7). It is expected this method would provide a coating applied over the entire surface.
With respect to claim 6, Chang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Chang further teaches that PVC tarpaulins have environmental concerns, and the disclosed product was developed as a substitute material for PVC (page 3). Therefore, the polymer blend of Chang is free from polyvinyl chloride.
With respect to claim 13, Chang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. The limitation "configured to be used in the fields of architecture, advertising, visual protection, sheathing and/or temporary weather protection” is a use limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the use produces a structural feature of the product. The use of the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed use because Chang teaches a tarpaulin comprising a polyester or polyolefin base woven fabric coated with a mixture of EVA and PE as claimed. Since Chang teaches the same materials and structure as disclosed by the Applicant, then it would be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments submitted on February 11, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 4 of the response Applicant submits that Chang is silent as to high-frequency welding and provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify its composition to achieve HF weldability.
These arguments are not persuasive. The textile fabric being weldable by high-frequency welding defines the textile fabric 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 1. See MPEP 2173.05(g). Chang teaches the claimed structure as stated in the above rejection, and therefore would be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
On page 4 of the response Applicant submits that the Chang and the pending application solve different problems.
These arguments are not persuasive. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP 2141.01(a). The instant invention is directed to a textile fabric with a surface coating (see e.g., claim 1 and page 1 of the instant specification). Similarly, Chang is directed to a polyester or polyolefin coated fabric (Chang; paragraph [8]). Therefore, Chang is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and is analogous art regardless of whether or not Chang solves the same problem as the claimed invention.
On pates 4-5 of the response Applicant submits that the ability of a polyolefin-based blend with greater than 40% PEVA to be HF-weldable is a surprising and unexpected result.
These arguments are not persuasive. Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, (ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope, and (iii) the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP 716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. MPEP 716.02(b).
With respect to (i), the results have not been fairly compared with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132. Applicant appears to rely on Sample 2 for the inventive results and argues Sample 1 is representative of Chang because the disclosure of Chang includes an embodiment of 100% by weight of EVA resin. According to the arguments Sample 1 is a pure PE resin. This is not representative of Chang as Chang discloses 1-99 wt% polyolefin (such as polyethylene), and therefore does not include an embodiment where the coating is 100% PE as alleged. Therefore Sample 1 does not fairly represent the coated fabric of Chang and as such the results have not been fairly compared with the prior art.
With respect to (ii), it is unclear whether the claims are commensurate in scope with the results as the specific composition used for Sample 2 was not disclosed. Page 10 of the specification as filed alleges that Sample 2 was coated with a polymer blend made from a mixture of PE and EVA copolymer according to claim 1, however only one Sample 2 appears to be shown. Therefore Sample 2 cannot provide support for the entire range of the claim. To establish unexpected results over a range, Applicant should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. MPEP 716.02(d)(II).
With respect to (iii), Applicant has merely stated that the results are surprising and unexpected but has not established why the results are unexpected.
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 Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Machine translation used as reference
2 Previously presented