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 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 1-4, 6-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bager et al. [US2004/0089640, of record, previously cited, “Bager”] in view of Yamada [JP4595378, of record, previously cited].
Bager discloses a method comprising: stacking a plurality of laser-weldable polymer film layers (11, 12, 13, 14), the laser-weldable polymer film layers including at least one colored film layer (14) at least first and second uncolored film layers (11, 12 13); directing a laser beam (18) of a first wavelength at the stack of film layers and moving the laser beam along a first welding path (contour welding), the laser beam impinging the at least one colored film layer (14) and producing localized heating and welding of the at least one colored film layer (14) and the first uncolored film layer (13) to each other along the first welding path (21) (Figure 3; paragraphs 0039-40, 0051). Bager discloses directing a laser beam (17) at the stack of film layers and moving the laser beam along a second welding path (contour welding) that is offset from the first welding path the laser beam impinging the second uncolored layer (13) and producing localized heating and welding of the second uncolored layer (13) and the first uncolored layer (12) to each other along the second welding path (20) (Figure 2; paragraphs 0039-40, 0051, 0054; “longitudinal welding seam” paragraph 0041; contour welding whole pouch along edges, paragraph 0050-51; welds are displaced slighltly, paragraph 0054).
Bager discloses a second laser but does not disclose the second laser has having a second wavelength different from the first wavelength of the first laser.
Yamada discloses a method of welding a multilayer laminate. Yamada discloses irradiating first and second laser beams with different wavelengths in order to weld different target areas in the multilayer laminate, and Yamada shows the laser beams are offset (paragraph 0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Bager by using a second laser with a second wavelength different from the first wavelength as taught by Yamada in order to improve the efficiency of the welding process by using wavelengths that are targeted for the material to be welded thereby improving the absorption of the laser beam.
With respect to claim 2, Bager discloses the laser beam (18) of the first wavelength passing through at least one of the first and second uncolored film layers (11, 12 and 13) before impinging the colored film layer (14) (Figure 3).
With respect to claim 3, it is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to select laser beam wavelengths to optimize absorption by the material worked upon. Additionally, Yamada discloses suitable wavelengths include 1100nm (paragraph 0031), and suggest the wavelengths are different from each other by 100nm (paragraph 0025). Given one of ordinary skill’s ability to select optimal wavelengths, Yamada’s teaching of suitable absorbable wavelength of 1100nm, and Yamada’s teaching of separating the wavelengths by 100nm, the claimed wavelength range is obvious.
With respect to claim 4, Bager discloses the at least one colored film layer including a carbon additive and the at least first and second uncolored film layers excluding carbon additive (paragraph 0035).
With respect to claim 6, Bager discloses the at least first and second uncolored film layers are transparent to the laser beam of the first wavelength (paragraph 0035, 0039-40).
With respect to claim 7, Bager discloses contour welding around the edges of a pouch which implies an endless loop to prevent leaking from the pouch (paragraph 0007, 0051, 0053).
With respect to claim 8, Bager discloses the endless loops are non-intersecting of each other (Figure 7).
With respect to claim 9, Bager discloses comprising providing a laser blocker (15 or 16) under the at least first and second uncolored film layers(11 or 12), the laser blocker blocking the laser beam from impinging on any of the laser-weldable polymer film layers below the at least first and second uncolored film layers (Figure 3).
With respect to claim 10, Bager discloses the laser blocker is colored (the absorbent component may have a visible color; paragraph 0021).
With respect to claim 13, Bager discloses the welding forms a pleated inflatable bladder (forms a bag that is capable of being inflated, paragraphs 0012-16; and a pleat as shown in Figure 7).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bager, Yamada, and further in view of Beyerlein et al. [US2012/0313420, of record, previously cited, “Beyerlein”].
Bager as modified discloses a method. Applicant is referred to paragraph 3 for a detailed discussion of Bager as modified. Bager discloses polymer films but does not disclose TPU.
Beyerlein discloses a metho of laser welding plastic films. Beyerlein discloses suitable plastic films for welding include thermoplastic polyurethane, TPU (paragraph 0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Bager by using polymer films of TPU as taught by Beyerlein in order to take advantage of known and suitable materials and to ensure the materials are weldable.
With respect to claim 14, Beyerlein discloses the at least one of the laser-weldable polymer film layers includes air channels (paragraph 0004).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bager, Yamada, and further in view of Schindler et al. [US2012/0183748, of record, previously cited, “Schindler”].
Bager as modified discloses a method. Applicant is referred to paragraph 3 for a detailed discussion of Bager as modified. Badger does not disclose a weld blocker above the at least first and second uncolored film layers.
Schindler discloses a method of welding. Schindler discloses uncolored layers (202 and 204), and an uncolored weld blocker (208) that would prevent the layers (202 and 204) from welding to any layers above the weld blocker (208) (Figure 2A; paragraph 0051-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Bager by including a weld blocker above the uncolored films as taught by Schindler in order to maintain the positioning of the film layers.
With respect to claim 12, Schindler discloses the weld blocker (208) is glass or quartz which is uncolored (paragraph 0051).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/25/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts Bager fails to describe moving the laser beam along two different welding paths which are offset from each other. Bager shows in several of the figures welds that are offset from each other, specifically Figure 7 shows welds 307 and 306 which are described as being displaced relative to each other (paragraph 0054). Bager also discloses the welds are contour welds over longitudinal areas and along edges of the product (paragraphs 0041, 0050-51, 0053-54).
Applicant further asserts Bager is silent as to moving two laser beams of different wavelengths along two different welding paths offset from each other. The paragraph above address the argument directed toward two different welding paths offset from each other. The body of the rejection addresses Bager failure to disclose two laser beams of different wavelength. Applicant is referred to the body of the rejection above, additionally Bager shows the two laser beams weld at different depths, and Yamada discloses welding at two different depths by using two laser beams of different wavelengths.
The combined teachings of Bager and Yamada would result in the claimed invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL MCNALLY whose telephone number is (571)272-2685. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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 MCNALLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
DPM
June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights