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 April 2nd, 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed January 9th, 2026.
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.
For the purpose of this examination, “a transparent, waterproof, and gas permeable film” will be abbreviated to TWGF.
Claims 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. US-20240076491-A1 in view of Parizat et al. US-20180265680-A1 and in further view of Willauer et al. US 2010028242 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al. teaches a TWGF represented by a non-porous, breathable, and waterproof transparent elastomer film (Fig. 1, Claim 1, [0005]). The non-porous, breathable, and waterproof transparent elastomer film comprises of the following elements of the current invention:
The “gas permeable” element is represented by the term “breathable,” meaning the film is “pervious to water vapor and gases” (Fig. 1, Claim 1, [0029]).
Transmittance greater than 85% at 428 nm by “the film has at least 90% transmittance” (Fig. 1, Claim 1, [0005]).
Liu et al. does not teach the TWGF comprising of the following elements: at least one monomeric plasticiser with a percentage by mass of the monomeric plasticiser of between 10% and 50% of a total mass of the material of the TWGF.
Parizat et al. teaches at least one monomeric plasticiser with a percentage by mass of the monomeric plasticiser of between 10% and 50% of a total mass of the material of the TWGF represented by “a plasticizer content of ≤ 20 mass%” (Claim 24, [0100]). The plasticiser is beneficial because it “improve[s] flexibility and elasticity of the films” (Parizat et al. [0026]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu et al. to incorporate the teachings of Parizat et al. to include a monomeric plasticiser to improve the flexibility and elasticity of the film.
Liu et al in view of Parizat et al. does not teach the TWGF’s polyolefin base comprising of either “a PP homopolymer” or “a PP/PE block or random copolymer.”
Willauer et al. teaches the polyolefin base of the TWGF corresponding to either a “PP homopolymer” or a “PP/PE block or random copolymer” represented by “where in the gas permeable membrane is a microporous polypropylene membrane” (Claim 2, [0020]). The polyolefin base being polypropylene is beneficial because it is well known in the art that polypropylene is non-reactive and stable over a range of temperatures and chemical exposures.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu et al. in view of Parizat et al. with the teachings of Willauer et al. to incorporate the polyolefin base being a polypropylene homopolymer to ensure the film is non-reactive and stable.
Regarding claim 2, Parizat et al. teaches the TWGF where in a percentage by mass of the monomeric plasticiser is between 15% and 45% of the total mass of the TWGF represented by “a plasticizer content of ≤ 20 mass%” (Claim 24, [0100]).
Regarding claim 7, Liu et al. teaches the TWGF having a thickness of between 25 µm and 100 µm represented by the “thickness of the non-porous, breathable and waterproof transparent elastomer film is in a range of 1 to 40 µm or more than 0.1 mm” (Claim 6, [0021]).
Claims 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. US-20240076491-A1, Parizat et al. US-20180265680-A1 and Willauer et al. US 2010028242 A1 and in further view of Smith et al. US-20250339822-A1.
Regarding claim 3, Liu et al. in view of Parizat et al. and in further view of Willauer et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Liu et al. in view of Parizat et al. and in further view of Willauer et al. does not teach the TWGF comprising molecular sieves with a percentage by mass less than or equal to 20% of the total mass of the TWGF.
Smith et al. teaches the TWGF comprising molecular sieves with a percentage by mass less than or equal to 20% represented by “a thin film nanocomposite membrane comprising anime-functionalized metal organic framework nanoparticles” that amount to “at least 0.05 wt %, at least 0.1 wt %, at least 0.5 wt %, at least 1 wt %, at least 2 wt %, at least 5 wt %, at least 10 wt %, at least 20 wt % …. by total weight of the polymer matrix and the particles” (Fig. 1, Claim 32, [0068]). The metal organic framework nanoparticles are beneficial to help filter and “allow for the passage of some species but not others” (Smith et al. [0069]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu et al. in view of Parizat et al. and in further view of Willauer et al. to incorporate the teachings of Smith et al. to include molecular sieves in the form of metal organic framework nanoparticles to help filter and keep undesired species from passing through the film.
Regarding claim 4, Liu at al. in view of Parizat et al. and in further view of Willauer et al. and in further view of Smith et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as well as the further limitation of claim 4 regarding the percentage of mass of the molecular sieve being less than or equal to 10% (see above).
Regarding claim 6, , Liu at al. in view of Parizat et al. and in further view of Willauer et al. and in further view of Smith et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as well as the further limitation of claim 6 where in the molecular sieve includes at least one of the following materials: cyclodextrins, zeolites, polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane, metal organic frameworks, covalent organic frameworks (see above).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. US-20240076491-A1, Parizat et al. US-20180265680-A1 and Willauer et al. US 2010028242 A1 and in further view of Wang et al. US-20210095081-A1.
Regarding claim 5 Liu at al. in view of Parizat et al. and in further view of Willauer et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Liu at al. in view of Parizat et al. and in further view of Willauer et al. does not teach the monomeric plasticiser including dioctyl sebacate.
Wang et al. teaches the plasticiser including dioctyl sebacate represented by “some examples of plasticizers that can be used…. dioctyl sebacate” (Wang et al. [0017]). Dioctyl sebacate is well known in the art as a plasticiser, specifically for its performance in cold-temperature applications.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Liu at al. in view of Parizat et al. and in further view of Willauer et al. with the teachings of Wang et al. because dioctyl sebacate is known in the art to have exceptional performance in cold-temperature applications.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. US-20240076491-A1, Parizat et al. US-20180265680-A1 and Willauer et al. US 2010028242 and in further view of Fujiwara et al. US-20240392082-A1.
Regarding claim 8, Liu at al. in view of Parizat et al. and in further view of Willauer et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Liu at al. in view of Parizat et al. and in further view of Willauer et al. does not teach the TWGF comprising of at least one of its sides with a layer of adhesive.
Fujiwara et al. teaches the TWGF comprising of at least one of its sides with a layer of adhesive represented by “an adhesive film obtained by providing an adhesive layer on one surface or both surfaces of the polyethylene film” (Fujiwara et al. Claim 10, [0092]). The adhesive layer is beneficial so the film can “[be] attached to an adherend” (Fujiwara et al. [0092]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu at al. in view of Parizat et al. and in further view of Willauer et al. with the teachings of Fujiwara et al. to incorporate the adhesive layer so the film can be attached to adherends.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, specifically regarding the material of the polyolefin base, 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.
Regarding claim 1, specifically the material of the polyolefin base, the new ground rejection is necessitated due to amendments made by the Applicant. Based on the claims filed on October 27, 2023, claim 1 stated the polyolefin base of the transparent, waterproof and gas-permeable film “corresponds to one of the following components: a PP homopolymer, or a PP/PE block or random copolymer.” This was interpreted to read that the polyolefin base could correspond to one of the following:
a PP homopolymer
a PP/PE block
a random copolymer
The amendments filed on April 2, 2026 now read that the polyolefin base “corresponds to the one of the following components: a PP homopolymer; or a PP/PE block or random copolymer.” This is clear that the polyolefin base may corresponds to only either of the following:
a PP homopolymer
a PP/PE block or random copolymer
Due to this amendment , a new ground rejection is made using Willauer et al. US 2010028242 A1 wherein Willauer et al. teaches the polyolefin base of the transparent, waterproof, and gas permeable film corresponding to either a “PP homopolymer” or a “PP/PE block or random copolymer” represented by “where in the gas permeable membrane is a microporous polypropylene membrane” (Claim 2, [0020]). The polyolefin base being polypropylene is beneficial because it is well known in the art that polypropylene is non-reactive and stable over a range of temperatures and chemical exposures.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu et al. in view of Parizat et al. with the teachings of Willauer et al. to incorporate the polyolefin base being a polypropylene homopolymer to ensure the film is non-reactive and stable.
Applicant's arguments filed April 2nd, 2026 in regards to claim 1, specifically the at least one monomeric plasticiser and the transmittance, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, specifically the at least one monomeric plasticiser, the claim states the TWGF must comprise of “at least one monomeric plasticiser with a percentage by mass of the at least one monomeric plasticiser [being] between 10% and 50% of the total mass of the material of the TWGF.” This limitation is clearly satisfied by the teachings of Parizat et al, and the motivation to incorporate these teachings are to “improve flexibility and elasticity of the film,” as noted by the Applicant.
Regarding claim 1, specifically the transmittance, Liu teaches the film having “at least 90% of the transmittance” is relevant as Liu teaches “the light transmittance of the prepared thin films was measured….according to industrial standard test methods.” It is well known in the art that industrial standard test methods, such as ASTM D 1003-21 “Haze and Luminous Transmittance of Transparent Plastics”, operate at visible wavelengths. It is also well known in the art that visible wave lengths are between 300 nm to 800 nm. Therefore, the teachings of Liu are highly relevant as 428 nm is in the visible wave length range.
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 AMMAD BUTT whose telephone number is (571)272-6550. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7-5PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/AMMAD W BUTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights