DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 and 20-22 in the reply filed on 6-01-2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and states that the ink layer covers at least a portion of the printing stock layer, but this limitation is already recited in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ridless, US 2007/0110925 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Ridless teaches a sheet (10 of Fig. 2) comprising a fabric layer (22 of Fig. 2) and a printing stock layer (20 of Fig. 2) formed on one side of the fabric layer, the printing stock layer comprising a first polymer, and an ink layer covering a portion of the printing stock layer ([0022], [0045]-[0046], [0049]).
Regarding claim 2, Ridless teaches that the polymer of the printing stock layer may be an acrylate ([0049]).
Regarding claim 3, Ridless teaches that the printing stock layer may have a thickness of 0.01-0.05 mm ([0046]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Ridless teaches that the sheet may comprise a base material layer (24 of Fig. 2) that is attached to the side of the fabric layer opposite the printing stock layer, the base material comprising polyethylene ([0045]-[0046]).
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 1-2, 6-7, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackusick, EP1006504A2, in view of Ridless, US 2007/0110925 A1.
Regarding claims 1-2, 6-7, and 20-22, Mackusick teaches an inflatable advertising sign or display (Abstract, [0001]) having internal tensioning members disposed in the inflatable chamber and connected to at least one wall ([0012]). Mackusick teaches that the inflatable product may comprise a nylon fabric layer with a coating of polyurethane (corresponding to the claimed “printing stock layer”) on one side ([0022]).
The teachings of Mackusick differ from the present invention in that Mackusick does not explicitly teach an ink layer covering a portion of printing stock layer. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an ink layer on the product of Mackusick because Mackusick explicitly teaches that the product is intended to be an advertising sign or display ([0001]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that advertising sings and displays typically comprise a printed ink layer featuring text or graphics. See, for example, Ridless’ Abstract and [0002]-[0003].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian A Rummel whose telephone number is (571)270-5692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternating Fridays, 8:30-5:00.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
IAN A. RUMMEL
Examiner
Art Unit 1785
/IAN A RUMMEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights