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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub No. 2015/0183194 to Lehmann in view of US Pub No. 2009/0126411 to Callaway, US Pub No. 2012/0264343 to Wienke and US Pub No. 2011/0097530 to Gohil and further in view of JP-3878736 to Kawamori.
Regarding Claims 3-5
Lehmann teaches a laminated fabric comprising HDPE and PP laminated with a polyolefin film (Lehmann, abstract, paragraph [0007]- [0008]). Lehman teaches that the polyolefin film may comprise LDPE and PP such as between 0 and 100% of each component which overlaps the claimed range of between 30 and 50% of each component and a ratio of 1:1 (Id., paragraph [0017], [0050]- [0053], [0060], [0080]). Lehmann teaches that the PP component may comprise PP homopolymer and PP copolymer (Id.). Lehman teaches that the mixture is kneaded and melted in a cylinder including a screw and then providing the molten resin raw material mixture through a die in a constant amount and then forming a resin layer by passing the molten resin through the die and bonding it to the fabric at temperatures between 230 to 300 degrees Celsius (Id., paragraph [0079], [0089]). Lehman teaches that PET is a thermoplastic polymer resin of the polyester family which may be utilized (Id., paragraph [0061]). Lehman teaches that the different materials utilized in the cross-weave and the material composition of coating provides improved tear strength and reduced delamination when used in tarpaulin applications (Id., paragraph [0006]).
Lehmann teaches that the polyolefin film may comprise LDPE and PP such as between 0 and 100% of each component which overlaps the claimed range of between 30 and 50% of each component (Id., paragraph [0017], [0050]- [0053], [0060], [0080]). Lehmann teaches that the PP component may comprise PP homopolymer and PP copolymer (Id.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to form the composite of the prior art combination, adjust, vary and optimize the range, such as including an amount of 30-50% by weight of polypropylene and 10-20% by weight of copolymer relative to the total composition, motivated by the desire to form a conventional composite fabric based on the totality of the teachings of Lehman.
Lehmann does not specifically teach the claimed structure of the woven fabric. However, Callaway teaches a fabric useful for tarpaulins, comprising a fabric layer including two multifilament yarns which are arranged to cross and a ground yarn binding the two multifilament crossing yarns (Callaway, abstract, paragraph [0002], [0035], fig. 3B, 4B). Callaway teaches that the cross yarns may comprise polyolefins (Id., paragraph [0035], [0055], [0060]). Callaway teaches that the grounding yarn is preferably polyester, of which PET has been demonstrated by Lehman as being suitable for coated fabrics including tarpaulins (Id., paragraph [0034]). Callaway teaches said fabrics possess sufficient dimensional stability to withstand the coating process (Id., paragraph [0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the coated fabric and method of making said coated fabric of Lehman, and to utilize as the weave structure, the woven fabric of Callaway, motivated by the desire to form a conventional tarpaulin and method of making said tarpaulin having improved dimensional stability to withstand the coating process.
Lehmann does not appear to teach the specific monomer mixture of the polyolefin copolymer. However, Wienke teaches a flexible sheet such as a tarpaulin comprising a resin layer of a copolymer of propylene and ethylene wherein the amount of ethylene monomer is between 5 and 20% which overlaps the claimed range of between 15 and 20%, the remainder would necessarily comprise between 80 and 95% of propylene monomer, overlapping the claimed range of between 80 and 85% by weight (Wienke, abstract, paragraphs [0039]- [0040], [0082]- [0085]). Wienke teaches that coated fabrics comprising this copolymer resin result in composites having light weight, high strength, outstanding weather resistance and flexibility (Id). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite of the Lehman and to utilize as the olefin copolymer, the propylene/ethylene copolymer of Wienke, motivated by the desire to form a conventional coated fabric having improved weight, strength, weather resistance and flexibility.
Lehmann teaches that the composition is extruded through a die such as a slot die but does not teach that the slot die is a T-shaped. However, Gohil teaches films of LDPE and/or polypropylene which are useful in forming laminates and tarpaulins, and are extruded through dies such as slot dies, T-shaped dies or “coat-hanger” dies (Gohil, abstract, paragraph [0058], [0066], [0118], [0140]), establishing functional equivalence between slot dies and T-dies for use in film forming operations. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the composition of Lehmann, and substituting the slot die of Lehmann with a T-shaped die, as suggested by Gohil, motivated by the desire to form a conventional method of making a film for laminate tarpaulins, comprising processing equipment known in the art as being functionally equivalent and predictably suitable for use in forming LDPE and Polypropylene films.
Lehmann does not specifically teach that the die includes a first region and a second region wherein the second region has a temperature higher than the first region by 5 to 20 degrees Celsius. However, Kawamori teaches heating means for a T-extrusion die for olefin-based elastomer films, which provides a 15-25 degrees Celsius higher temperature in a second (end) region relative to the central (first) region in order to produce a sheet with improved flatness and uniform length (Kawamori, abstract, paragraph [0001]- [0005], [0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to perform the method of the prior art combination and to utilize the dual heating configuration of Kawamori, motivated by the desire to form a conventional multilayer material including a resin layer having improved flatness and uniformity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
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 VINCENT A TATESURE whose telephone number is (571)272-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-4PM 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, Jennifer Chriss can be reached at 5712727783. 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.
/VINCENT TATESURE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights