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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 and 12-16, in the reply filed on 02/05/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the International Search Authority did not separate the inventions of the instant application and the current application should do the same. This is not found persuasive because the instant claims share the same technical feature which is taught by the prior art of Oeser as presented in the Restriction/Election Requirement dated 12/18/2025 and as presented in the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/11/2024 and 10/27/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 requires the limitation of “the slots of the slotted perforation each have a length of 0 mm to 2 mm.” This limitation requires a range for the slots which includes 0 mm, indicating that the slots are not present, however, claims 1 and 4 require slots. As such, the claim is rejected for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that is applicant’s invention. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is to be interpreted as “the slots of the slotted perforation each have a length of greater than 0 mm to 2 mm” (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraph [0028]). Claims 12-13 are additionally rejected for being dependent from claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oeser et al. (WO 2021/105315) with US 2023/010729 as an English Language Translation.
Regarding claim 1, Oeser teaches aerodynamic functional films which attach to bodies around which flow passes, such as planes or trains (“a film for application to pressurized bodies”) (Paragraph [0002]-[0006]). The films are self-adhesive and may have openings or slots in the form of cutouts (“a slotted perforation consisting of slots arranged over a flat area without material release”) (Paragraph [0026]).
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.
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.
Claims 2-6 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oeser et al. (WO 2021/105315) with US 2023/010729 as an English Language Translation as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Li et al. (WO 2021/137135) with US 2023/0034952 as an English Language Translation.
Regarding claim 2, Oeser teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Oeser is silent with respect to the slots of the films being arranged in several parallel lines.
Li teaches stretch release adhesive articles which are provided with fine-tunable mechanical properties through the application of cuts or slits (Paragraph [0001]; [0005]). The pattern of slits may be provided as shown in figure 4A (Paragraph [0058]). The length of the cuts may range from 0.2 to 5 mm and the distances between cuts may be from 0.01 to 20 mm in order to provide the necessary mechanical properties for the desired usage (Paragraph [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the slits of Oeser to be provided in parallel lines as taught by Li which teaches providing these slits in order to fine-tune the mechanical properties of the films.
Regarding claim 3, Oeser teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Oeser is silent with respect to the slots of the films having a constant length, constant direction and/or a constant distance.
Li teaches stretch release adhesive articles which are provided with fine-tunable mechanical properties through the application of cuts or slits (Paragraph [0001]; [0005]). The pattern of slits may be provided as shown in figure 4A (Paragraph [0058]). The length of the cuts may range from 0.2 to 5 mm and the distances between cuts may be from 0.01 to 20 mm in order to provide the necessary mechanical properties for the desired usage (Paragraph [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the slits of Oeser to be provided in parallel lines, constant direction, as taught by Li which teaches providing these slits in order to fine-tune the mechanical properties of the films.
Regarding claim 4, Oeser teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Oeser is silent with respect to the slots of the films having a length of greater than 0 mm to 2 mm.
Li teaches stretch release adhesive articles which are provided with fine-tunable mechanical properties through the application of cuts or slits (Paragraph [0001]; [0005]). The pattern of slits may be provided as shown in figure 4A (Paragraph [0058]). The length of the cuts may range from 0.2 to 5 mm and the distances between cuts may be from 0.01 to 20 mm in order to provide the necessary mechanical properties for the desired usage (Paragraph [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the slits of Oeser to be provided in parallel lines having lengths of 0.2 to 5 mm as taught by Li which teaches providing these slits in order to fine-tune the mechanical properties of the films.
Regarding claim 5, Oeser teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Oeser is silent with respect to the slots of the films having a distance between slots of 5 mm to 15 mm.
Li teaches stretch release adhesive articles which are provided with fine-tunable mechanical properties through the application of cuts or slits (Paragraph [0001]; [0005]). The pattern of slits may be provided as shown in figure 4A (Paragraph [0058]). The length of the cuts may range from 0.2 to 5 mm and the distances between cuts may be from 0.01 to 20 mm in order to provide the necessary mechanical properties for the desired usage (Paragraph [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the slits of Oeser to be provided in parallel lines having distances of 0.01 to 20 mm as taught by Li which teaches providing these slits in order to fine-tune the mechanical properties of the films.
Regarding claim 6, Oeser teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Oeser is silent with respect to the films further comprising an adhesive layer so as to be self-adhesive.
Li teaches stretch release adhesive articles which are provided with fine-tunable mechanical properties through the application of cuts or slits (Paragraph [0001]; [0005]). The articles may be provided with adhesive layers in order to affix the articles to the surface they are applied to (Paragraph [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the films of Oeser to further include adhesive layers in order to affix the films to the surface they are applied to as taught by Li.
Regarding claim 12, Oeser teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 4. As discussed above, the slits have lengths of 0.2 to 5 mm.
Regarding claim 13, Oeser teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 12. As discussed above, the slits have lengths of 0.2 to 5 mm.
Regarding claim 14, Oeser teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 5. As discussed above, the slits have distances between them of 0.01 to 20 mm.
Regarding claim 15, Oeser teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 14. As discussed above, the slits have distances between them of 0.01 to 20 mm.
Regarding claim 16, Oeser teaches the films as discussed above with respect to claim 6. As discussed above, the combination of Oeser and Li teach the films including adhesive layers in order to affix the films to surfaces. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the bonding of the films using the adhesive would include either dry or wet bonding.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oeser et al. (WO 2021/105315) with US 2023/010729 as an English Language Translation in view of Li et al. (WO 2021/137135) with US 2023/0034952 as an English Language Translation as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sher et al. (US 2006/0228509).
Regarding claim 7, Oeser teaches the films with the adhesives as discussed above with respect to claim 6.
Oeser and Li are silent with respect to the adhesive having air channels extending in the plane of the adhesive layer.
Sher teaches adhesives having a controlled topographical surface of microchannels (Paragraph [0002]). The microchannels allow for the egress of air and fluids so as to not affect the appearance of films and allow for the films to be adhered to an adherend for a controlled period of time (Paragraphs [0033]-[0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the films with the adhesives of Oeser to further include microchannels allowing for the egress of air and fluids in order to not affect the appearance of films and allow for the films to be adhered to an adherend for a controlled period of time as taught by Sher.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights