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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 03 December 2025 is acknowledged.
The elected claims are drawn to a seam tape, as opposed to the inflatable safter product of Group II. While the seam tape must be able to serve the function of independently and indirectly couple gas holding panels to create a gas holding inflatable product, the article of the elected claims (i.e., the seam tape) does not include the gas-holding panels.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03 December 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: 110 and 112 (see paragraph 0024) and 114A-B (see paragraph 0020). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hottner (US 2006/0165939).
Hottner is directed to providing a waterproof welded seam formed along an edge between two textile laminates oriented edge-to-edge (paragraph 0018). Each laminate comprises a waterproof functional layer and a textile layer, with the textile layer comprising first and second components wherein the first component is stable at a temperature higher than the melting temperature of the second component (paragraph 0020). The seam strength may be improved using a reinforcement, such as a seam tape, applied to the welding seam (paragraphs 0122-0123). The seam tape comprises a backing tape covered with a hot melt adhesive on one side that melts above or below the melting temperature of the second component of the textile layer of the laminates to be joined (paragraph 0125).
In the embodiment of Example 3, a welded seam is formed between two laminates using a 3 layer bi-component laminate tape (paragraph 0139). The laminates comprise bi-component textiles and a waterproof functional layer, wherein the bi-component textile comprises polyamide 6.6 with a melting point of 255 oC and polyamide 6 having a melting point of 225 oC (paragraph 0134).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately envisaged employing the same bi-component layer in the seam tape as used in the laminate since they are designed to be adhered together. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the same bi-component layer of the textile as the bi-component layer of the seam tape to enable the usual seam sealing conditions to be maintained (paragraph 0125). Therefore, at least the polyamide 6.6 of the seam tape would have a melt temperature higher than the polyamide 6 of the laminates such that the seam tape would have a melt temperature that is 30 oC higher than a melt temperature of the laminate.
Regarding the limitation in claim 1 that the seam tape is "configured to independently and indirectly couple gas-holding panels," this limitation is satisfied since the seam tape described by Hottner is designed to couple laminates in an edge-to-edge orientation. That the laminates of Hottner are described as permeable to water vapor is immaterial since the elected claims are directed only to the seam tape and not an assembly comprising the tape and the gas-holding panels. Since the seam tape is able to couple together panels that are with a functional layer that is waterproof but permeable to water vapor, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect its configuration to be capable of coupling panels in which the functional layer is gas impermeable.
Regarding the limitation in claim 3 that the first substrate comprises ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, this limitation is satisfied since the first substrate (i.e., the gas holding panel) is not positively recited as part of the seam tape of the elected invention.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of this claim are taken to be satisfied since the "inflatable product" is merely an intended use of the panels coupled together with the seam tape and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed product is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed product from a prior art product satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114.
The limitations of claims 6 and 7 are satisfied since one of the other layers of the 3 layer laminate tape illustrated in Example 3 reads on the second coating of the seam tape and the first substrate (and thus the first coating on the first substrate) is not positively recited as part of the seam tape of the elected invention.
The limitations in claim 9 directed to tensile and tear strengths are taken to be met since one of ordinary skill in the art would expect these to be material properties and Hottner used the same material (i.e., polyamide) as used in the instant invention (e.g., see claims 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 10, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the limitation directed to the decrease in pressure when subjected to heat to be a function of the material used to form both the seam tape and the panels that the seam tape is configured to couple. Since the seam tape is formed from the same material as used in the instant invention and the panels are not positively recited as part of the elected invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the seam tape could be used with panels providing sufficient air impermeability to satisfy the limitations of this claim.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect seam shear strength and seam peel strength to be a function of both the seam tape and the panels coupled by the seam tape. Since the seam tape is formed from the same material as used in the instant invention and the panels are not positively recited as part of the elected invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the seam tape could be used with panels such that the resulting structure provides sufficient seam shear and seam peel strengths to satisfy the limitations of these claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMSEY E ZACHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-1518. The best time to reach the examiner is weekday afternoons, Eastern time.
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, Callie Shosho, can be reached on 571 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAMSEY ZACHARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787