DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The specification requires a cross-reference to related applications section indicating that present application is a continuation of Application Ser. No. 17/259,574, filed on January 12, 2021, now U.S. Patent No. 12,043,713, which is a 371 of PCT/US2019/044082, filed July 30, 2019, which claims benefit of provisional application No. 62/712,249, filed on July 31, 2018.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, delete “the” which precedes “substantially”.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the term “a copolymer” is recited twice.
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim states that the hydrophilic polymer may be an ionomer or a copolymer. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of materials that qualify as ionomer or copolymer. As claim does not identify the chemical name or structure of said ionomer or copolymer, it is unclear what type of ionomer or copolymer is protected under the claim and consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of claim. Based on these considerations, claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 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 19, 22, 24, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Furuya et al. (JP 2014-61505).
Furuya et al. teaches a moisture permeable waterproof membrane composed of a polyolefin microporous film having a porosity in a range of 78 % to 93 % (paragraph [0034]) and laminated with a layer of polyurethane resin (paragraph [0062]). Formation of this membrane structure is carried out by contacting the polyolefin microporous film with a solution of hydrophilic polymer using coating, impregnation, or spraying methods (paragraph [0048], [0064]), such that pores of the polyolefin microporous membrane are also covered with the polyurethane resin (paragraph [0050]). Thus, at least a portion of the pore are coated or filled with the polyurethane resin. Inventive moisture permeable waterproof membrane is used for making clothes, i.e., shirt, pants, jacket. Since the moisture permeable waterproof membrane is waterproof, the implication is that it would be disposed on the exterior of the clothing to impart waterproof properties thereto (paragraph [0054]).
Claims 19, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nishioka et al. (US 2021/0164737; relying on foreign priority dates of December 5, 2017 and February 28, 2018).
Example 1 of Nishioka et al. teaches a sheet 101 comprising a porous base material 102 made of polyethylene having a porosity of 43 % and basis weight of 6.7 g/m2, and a resin layer 103 comprising polyvinyl pyrrolidone and polyurethane, wherein part of resin layer 103 fills the pores 104 of the porous base material 102, as shown by reference numeral 201.
PNG
media_image1.png
262
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 20, 21, and 25-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome claim objection (claim 21), supra, and if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. None of cited references teaches the subject of claim 20, which recites allowed subject in parent US 12,043,713.
Information Disclosure Statement
Corrections to citations were made in the information disclosure statement file don August 20, 2025. Reference WO 99/93930, drawn to 3D mesh compression and coding, is not germane to claimed subject and is therefore not considered.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rip A. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-1104. The examiner can be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571)270-7733. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RIP A LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 June 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights