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 1-5, 7, and 9-13 in the reply filed on 08/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Ben-Daat does not teach the multilayered sheet of the instant application. This is not found persuasive because BEN-DAAT et al. discloses a method of producing a
high-density polyethylene/polyurethane multilayered sheet comprising co-extruding HDPE and TPU [0016], wherein the HDPE comprises unfunctionalized HDPE and functionalized HDPE [0049], thereby producing a HDPE/TPU multilayered sheet [0022]-[0025].
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15-17, 19, 22-27 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/24/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(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(s) 1-4, 7, 9-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by BEN-DAAT et al. (2018/0281260-of record).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 9, BEN-DAAT et al. discloses a method of producing a
high-density polyethylene/polyurethane multilayered sheet comprising co-extruding HDPE and TPU [0016], wherein the HDPE comprises unfunctionalized HDPE and functionalized HDPE [0049], thereby producing a HDPE/TPU multilayered sheet [0022]-[0025].
Regarding claim 7, BEN-DAAT et al. discloses HDPE comprises at most about 40 wt% [0031].
Regarding claim 10, BEN-DAAT et al. discloses the TPU is a polyester or a polyether [0026].
Regarding claim 13, BEN-DAAT et al. discloses heating between 190 to 230ºC [0064].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEN-DAAT et al. (2018/0281260-of record) as applied above for claims 1-4, 7, 9-19, and 13.
The teachings of BEN-DAAT et al. are applied as described above for claims 1-4,
7, 9-10, and 13.
Regarding claims 11-12, BEN-DAAT et al. discloses TPU includes, but are not limited to, the TEXIN® Series from Covestro, the ELASTOLLAN® Series from BASF, the ESTANE® Series from Lubrizol, and the IROGRAN® Series from Huntsman [0033]. In other words, any type of TPU can be incorporated in the method of BEN-DAAT et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum TPU through routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BEN-DAAT et al. (2018/0281260-of record) as applied above for claims 1-4, 7, 9-19, and 13, and in further view of KARJALA et al. (2010/0160497).
The teachings of BEN-DAAT et al. are applied as described above for claims 1-4,
7, 9-10, and 13.
Regarding claim 5, BEN-DAAT et al. is silent to the amount of maleic anhydride.
However, KARJALA et al. teach the amount of maleic anhydride may impact the final structure of the maleated interpolymer and the resulting structure, will in turn affect the properties and use of the final product [0139]. Furthermore, KARJALA et al. discloses the amount of maleic anhydride is less than 10 wt.% (based on the weight of the reactive composition) [0136]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum amount of malaic anhydride for the HDPE layer of BEN-DAAT et al. through routine experimentation because KARJALA et al. teach the amount of maleic anhydride is based on the weight of the reactive composition and the amount matters in achieving the desired properties of the final product.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1) KARJALA et al. (2010/0160497) discloses functionalized olefin interpolymers, compositions and articles prepared therefrom, and method for making the same.
2) WOOD (2009/0199347) discloses method for treating textile material for use in reinforced elastomeric articles.
3) DIAO et al. (CN 115447093) discloses co-extrusion control system for preparing modified PC and TPU composite material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STELLA KIM YI whose telephone number is (571)270-5123. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
STELLA YI
Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/STELLA K YI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights