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
This is a response to the amendment filed 11/24/2025. Claims 9 has been canceled and thus all rejections are withdrawn with respect to these claims. Claims 7 and 8 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the prior rejection of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 7, 8 and 10 are 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 7 recites “the second hot melt adhesive film may reach 200 grams per centimeter” and “wherein the water pressure resistance of the waterproof film component may reach 5000 mmH2O.” It is unclear what these limitations require and whether they have any definitive limiting effect. Since the word “may” is used, it implies the peel strength and water pressure resistance may not meet these parameters. As such, any definitive limiting effect of this language is not apparent, and these limitations are essentially interpreted as being non-limiting.
The remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
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) 7, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Napierski (DE102019216544, wherein all textual citations are to the English machine translation provided) in view of Droke et al. (US 3,669,921) and Shehata (US 5,445,874).
Regarding Claims 7, 8 and 10, Napierski teaches a manufacturing method comprising: simultaneously conveying a base film [M1],[3], a first hot melt adhesive film [4],[K1], and a second film [M2],[2] to a pressing section (See Fig. 1, page 5, paragraph [0018] and page 8, paragraph [0026], wherein the adhesive [K1],[4] is taught to be a hot melt coated into a film [4] on base film [3] such that films [M1]/[3], [M2]/[2], and [K1],[4] are all simultaneously conveyed, see page 9, paragraph [0029], wherein the adhesive may be coated as a continuous layer, such a continuous layer reasonably characterized as a film);
using a first heating manner and an ultrasonic vibration heating manner to heat the base film [M1],[3], the first hot melt adhesive film [4],[K1], and the second film [2],[M2] in the pressing section (See pages 10-11, paragraphs [0032]-[0036], wherein rollers [W1],[W2], illustrated as rollers [9],[9’] each may provide heat up to 400 Celsius, making them hot roller devices as in Claim 9, and one or both may contain an ultrasonic generator; Examiner submits any heating roller with the ultrasonic generator provides an ultrasonic vibration heating manner while the opposing roller may be considered to provide a first heating manner; note since no variable output in the vibrations is described, a fixed vibration power is certainly implied or at lead obvious wherein the roller itself vibrates from the ultrasonic generator and heats the base film, thus being an ultrasonic device as claimed);
pressing the base film, the first hot melt adhesive film, and the second hot melt adhesive film to generate a film component [1] in the pressing section (See Fig. 1, wherein the layers are pressed together between rollers [9],[9’] to form film component therebetween).
Although Napierski doesn’t explicitly refer to the second film [M2]/[2] as a hot melt adhesive, Examiner submits the hot melt adhesives are never defined in the instant specification and considering the hot melt adhesive as described in the specification may have a very high melting point, Examiner submits a broad interpretation of “hot melt adhesives” is reasonable to include any resinous material having a melting point and capable of bonding. Thus, Examiner submits virtually any thermoplastic material may be considered a hot melt adhesive within the context of the instant invention. Napierski teaches the substrate may comprise thermoplastic materials (See page 2, paragraph [0004]), and thus Examiner submits the substrate may comprise a material that may melt and forms bonds, which is a characteristic of thermoplastic. Thus, the second film [M2] is reasonably characterized as a second hot melt adhesive film as claimed if it is thermoplastic.
Napierski doesn’t explicitly indicate the laminated layers are for a waterproof film or that the hot melt layer are polyesters. However, as described above, Napierski teaches a meltable central hot melt layer and composite, textile, non-woven, or knitted exterior layers without describing any particular materials (See pages 7-8, paragraphs [0023]-[0024] and [0026]). It would have been apparent that the lamination method is broadly applicable to any such known materials utilized in heated lamination using hot melts. Examiner submits polyester hot melt adhesives are well-known in the prior art, including as film laminated between polyester layers that clearly have a higher melting point where only the hot melt is melted (See, for example, Droke et al., col. 3, lines 65-75 and col. 4, lines 63-70, teaching a polyester hot melt film is bonded between fabrics, such as polyester fabrics), and it is also known hot melt bondable polyesters may be waterproof (See, for example, Shehata, col. 2, lines 10-20 and col. 3, lines 37-50, wherein polyester layers maybe be rendered waterproof prior to hot melt lamination). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a waterproof thermoplastic polyester outer layer as layer [M1] or [M2] in Napierski, and a polyester hot melt as [K1]. Examiner submits these are the exact layers Napierski describes as suitable for lamination, i.e. composites and fabrics and hot melt films, and such materials are known to be used together in the prior art to form laminated products such as waterproof films. Doing so would have allowed a manufacturer to utilize known bondable materials to form known products via a known method that would have predictably been suitable to utilize such materials to form such products. Any such polyester is a second hot melt as claimed.
Examiner notes the language of claim 8 is a very convoluted and awkward way of merely state that there is heating in the pressing section occurs to at a temperature to only melt the first hot melt. Examiner highly encourages Applicant to simply the claim and not use so much superfluous and convoluted language to convey merely that heating occurs at a temperature to melt only the first hot melt.
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 SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746