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 .
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 28-29 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 28 recites the limitation "the hard" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the soft" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 19-26 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 2016/0122595) in view of Wu et al. “Characteristics of Polycarbonate Soft Segment-Based Thermoplastic Polyurethane”, Applied Sciences, vol. 11, no. 12, 1 January 2021 (2021-01-01), pages 1-17 (cited by applicant).
Feng discloses a multilayer film comprising: an adhesive layer comprising a thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer, and mixtures thereof; a barrier layer bonded to the adhesive layer, said barrier layer comprising a thermoplastic polyester elastomer (paragraphs [0035-0038], [0043]).
Feng does not disclose a thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer selected from the group consisting of polyether-based thermoplastic polyurethane elastomers, polycarbonate-based thermoplastic elastomers.
Wu discloses a thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer selected from the group consisting of polyether-based thermoplastic polyurethane elastomers, polycarbonate-based thermoplastic elastomers for the purpose of providing optimized mechanical properties such as stability and tensile strength (pages 1-17).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant’s invention was made to have provided a thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer selected from the group consisting of polyether-based thermoplastic polyurethane elastomers, polycarbonate-based thermoplastic elastomers in Feng in order to provide optimized mechanical properties such as stability and tensile strength as taught or suggested by Wu.
Wu discloses claims 20-23 and 37 (pages 1-17).
Feng discloses characterized in that the adhesive layer comprises more than 90% by weight of thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer, by weight relative to the total weight of said adhesive layer (paragraphs [0035-0038], [0043]).
With regard to claims 24-25 modified Feng doesn’t disclose applicant’s recited Shore hardness. However, finding the optimum range or value for a result effective variable is obvious and well within the level of one of ordinary skill (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to have provided applicant’s recited Shore hardness in order to optimize the mechanical properties of the film.
Claim(s) 27-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 2016/0122595) in view of Wu et al. “Characteristics of Polycarbonate Soft Segment-Based Thermoplastic Polyurethane”, Applied Sciences, vol. 11, no. 12, 1 January 2021 (2021-01-01), pages 1-17 (cited by applicant), as applied to claims 19-26 and 37 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (US 2020/0223389).
Modified Feng does not disclose wherein the thermoplastic polyester elastomer is of the polyester-polyester or polyester-polyether or polyester-polyester/polyether type.
Yamada discloses wherein the thermoplastic polyester elastomer is of the polyester-polyester or polyester-polyether or polyester-polyester/polyether type in a multilayer film for the purpose of providing improved adhesion, strength and lower costs (paragraphs [009-0010], [0019], [0025-0047], [0061], [0087]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to have provided wherein the thermoplastic polyester elastomer is of the polyester-polyester or polyester-polyether or polyester-polyester/polyether type in modified Feng for the purpose of providing improved adhesion, strength and lower costs as taught or suggested by Yamada.
Yamada discloses claims 28-30 (paragraphs [009-0010], [0019], [0025-0047], [0061], [0087]).
With regard to claim 31 modified Feng doesn’t disclose applicant’s recited Shore hardness. However, finding the optimum range or value for a result effective variable is obvious and well within the level of one of ordinary skill (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to have provided applicant’s recited Shore hardness in order to optimize the mechanical properties of the film.
Feng discloses claims 32-33 (paragraphs [0035-0038], [0043]).
Yamada disclose claims 34-36 (paragraphs [009-0010], [0019], [0025-0047], [0061], [0087]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1494. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 1-9 pm 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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/MICHAEL C MIGGINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
MCM
July 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights