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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
3. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12-15, and 18-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne (WO 2021/005083, of record) in view of (a) Kim (US 2017/207002, of record) and Ohtsuka (US 4,935,306, of record) and (b) Kronzer (US 2005/0145325, newly cited) and/or Prasad (US 2008/0274674, newly cited).
Osborne is directed to a seam tape comprising a barrier layer or first polyester layer (e.g. thermoplastic elastomer based on esters) and a hot melt adhesive layer or second polyester layer comprising a mixture of polymers, including polyesters (Page 4, Lines 7-20 and Page 5, Lines 9-13). Similarly, Osborne teaches the inclusion of at least one layer of unidirectionally aligned fibers, such as polyester fibers, and such a layer can be viewed as the claimed first polyester layer.
In such an instance, though, Osborne fails to expressly teach the inclusion of first and second polyester materials to form the hot melt adhesive layer. In any event, it is extremely well known and conventional to use multiple polyester materials when forming adhesive layers in a wide variety of applications, as shown for example by Kim (Paragraphs 54 and 55) and/or Ohtsuka (Abstract and Column 3, Lines 60+). This is consistent with the general disclosure of Osborne to form the adhesive layer as a mixture (Page 4, Line 14-17). It is particularly noted that Ohtsuka specifically recognizes the use of an adhesive comprising first and second polyester resins when bonding with additional polyester layers, as is the case in Osborne, in order to obtain excellent adhesion (Column 3, Lines 30+). Absent a conclusive showing of unexpected results, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use first and second polyester resins as the adhesive mixture taught by Osborne for the benefits detailed above (recognized as being suitable for applications involving polyester layers).
With specific respect to claims 4 and 8, Kim (Paragraph 14) teaches the use of a low molecular weight polyester (1,000-15,000) and a high molecular weight polyester (20,000-35,000). Given the significant difference in molecular wights, it reasons that respective polyester resins would have different melt flow index values and melting temperatures. While Kim fails to expressly disclose the melt flow index and melting temperatures of respective polyester resins, it appears that the claimed index values and melting temperatures are associated with conventional low and high molecular weight polyesters and thus, one would expect the claimed index values to be present in the adhesive composition disclosed by Kim. Kronzer (Paragraph 63) and/or Prasad (Paragraphs 32 and 33 and Table 1) provide the general order of values for the melt flow index and melting temperature of adhesive materials, including hot melt adhesives. These teachings would thus suggest the general order of values for the individual components or materials that make up the hot melt adhesive of Osborne as modified by Kim and/or Prasad. It is emphasized that the combination of low molecular wight and high molecular weight polyester resins is recognized as providing high levels of adhesion and given a significant difference in molecular weights, it reasons that a difference in melt flow index and melting temperature would similarly result. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed combination of materials having specific properties. Looking at the “exemplification” section of Applicant’s original specification, it is noted that the prior art references of record specifically motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to select a mixture of polyester resin materials for an adhesive layer when bonding with a polyester material, as is the case in the assembly of Osborne. Any realized benefits would be expected to result when modifying the assembly of Osborne with Kim and/or Ohtsuka (given the direction to form an adhesive layer with a plurality of polyester materials in an analogous manner to the claimed invention).
Lastly, with respect to claim 1, the general disclosure of Osborne is seen to encompass any number of loadings for the individual materials or polyester resins in the disclosed mixture and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed loadings. Furthermore, Ohtsuka provides one example in which a first polyester resin and a second polyester resin are included in a ratio in accordance to the claimed invention (Column 12, Lines 8-11). It is emphasized that Applicant has not provided a comparative examples formed with first and second polyester resins at ratios outside that required by the claimed invention. Also, the language “about” in several of the claimed parameters is described by Applicant as encompassing a variation as large as 10% at either end of the claimed parameters (see Page 15, Lines 13+ in the originally filed specification). Thus, the claimed ranges are actually significantly wider that what is suggested by the disclosed endpoints, further suggesting that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use materials in accordance to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Osborne teaches the use of thermoplastic elastomers based on esters (Page 5, Lines 9+).
Regarding claim 5, the claims as currently drafted fail to require specific values for the re-crystallization time and thus, the first resin of Osborne can be viewed as having a “fast” re-crystallization time. Essentially, any re-crystallization time can be viewed as a “fast” re-crystallization time.
As to claim 7, the claims as currently drafted fail to require specific parameters that define a “rapid” melting resin and thus, the second resin of Osborne can be viewed as being a “rapid” melting resin. Essentially, any resin can be viewed as a “rapid” melting resin (relative terminology).
Regarding claim 9, the claims as currently drafted fail to require specific values for the re-crystallization time and thus, the second resin of Osborne can be viewed as having a “slow” re-crystallization time. Essentially, any re-crystallization time can be viewed as a “slow” re-crystallization time.
With respect to claim 12, Osborne suggests an adhesive (claimed second layer) defined by a mixture of thermoplastic polymers, including polyesters and polyurethanes (Page 4, Lines 14+). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a mixture of polyester and polyurethane, for example, given the general disclosure of Osborne and Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed combination of materials.
Regarding claim 13, the claims require a thickness between about 1 mil and about 3 mil for the adhesive layer or second layer. This corresponds to approximately 25-76 microns. Osborne teaches a preferred adhesive thickness between 25 microns and 500 microns (Page 4, Lines 21+) and such is seen to fully encompass the claimed range.
As to claim 14, Osborne teaches a preferred tape thickness between 125 microns and 500 microns (Page 3, Lines 1-2) and such corresponds with approximately 4.9 microns-19.7 microns.
Regarding claim 15, Osborne states that a laminated structure can be cut to a desired width (Page 6, Lines 10+) and the claimed widths are consistent with those that are commonly associated with seam tapes.
With respect to claim 18, the seam tape of Osborne includes at least one layer of unidirectionally aligned fibers and such a layer can be viewed as the claimed fabric (Page 2, Lines 4+).
As to claim 19, the claims are directed to a method of manufacture and such limitations fail to further define the structure of the claimed tape.
Regarding claim 20, the claims are directed to a seam tape and additional layers that are attached or adhered to the seam tape fail to further define the structure of the claimed seal tape (claims define a fabric as being a separate and distinct layer from the seam tape and thus, the fabric is not a structural component of the claimed seam tape).
With respect to claims 21 and 22, Kim and/or Prasad suggest the general order of melting temperatures for the individual components or materials that make up the hot melt adhesive of Osborne.
As to claims 23 and 24, the claims appear to simply define recrystallization times that are consistent with commercially available polyester resins (see Pages 7 and 8 in originally filed specification). Given the general disclosure by Osborne to include polyesters, it reasons that one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any number of well-known polyester resins. Also, Applicant has not provided a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the claimed recrystallization times (lack of comparative examples in having non-inventive recrystallization times).
4. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne, Kim, Ohtsuka, Kronzer, and Prasad as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Wangbunyen (US 2012/128943, of record).
Osborne teaches a seam tape including a first polyester layer. In such an instance, though, Osborne fails to teach the inclusion of a matte finish. In any event, it is extremely well known that garments can have any number of textures and when including a seam tape, such a texture would be desirable in said seam tape, so as to form a continuous garment without a visible difference in appearance. Wangbunyen provides one example of a garment having any desired color or texture (Paragraph 25). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a similar color or texture to the first polyester layer of Osborne for the benefits detailed above. It is further noted that a “matte finish” is a conventional texture or surface finish- the specific use of such a finish would have been a direct function of the garment to which said seam tape is applied.
5. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne,
Kim, Ohtsuka, Kronzer, and Prasad as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of
as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Johnson (WO 2010/132083, of record).
Osborne teaches a seam tape including a first polyester layer. In such an instance, though, Osborne fails to teach the inclusion of an ink layer. In any event, it is extremely well known that garments can have any number of colors and when including a seam tape, such a color would be desirable in said seam tape, so as to form a continuous garment without a visible difference in appearance. Johnson provides one example of a garment having a color formed by printing with an ink jet printer (Page 7, Lines 3-30). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a similar color to the first polyester layer of Osborne for the benefits detailed above and such is commonly accomplished by providing an ink layer.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) June 10, 2026 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
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN R FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
Justin Fischer
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749 July 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights