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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and amendments received on April 16, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, and 14-16 are amended; claims 2 and 17-20 are canceled; claims 21-25 are new; resulting in claims 1, 3-16, and 21-25 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the mailing date of this office action, there has been no information disclosure statement entered into the file. The Applicant is reminded of their duty to disclose. See MPEP 2001.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 22 does not end with a period. As set forth in MPEP 608.01(m), each claim must begin with a capital letter and end with a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-16, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 21, the limitation reciting “the one or more folding sections comprising v-shaped indentations at the second side” (claim 1) and “one or more folding sections at the second side comprising v-shaped indentations” (claim 21) are indefinite because it is not clear exactly what structure is required by the claim. In particular, it is not clear whether the claim is intended to require that the one or more folding sections comprise plural v-shaped indentations (i.e., either that each folding section includes multiple v-shaped indentations or that the one or more folding sections together include multiple v-shaped indentations), or if the claim is intended to require that each of the one or more folding sections comprises a single v-shaped indentation.
In looking to paragraph [0030] of the as-filed specification, the folding section (20) of the foldable board (10) is said to comprise a v-notch (i.e., a v-shaped indentation or gap) forming the angles of each panel (12). As shown in each of the embodiments of Figs. 1A-1C, the folding section (20) is present in the form of a single v-shaped indentation which extends along the length (or width) of the foldable board. For the purpose of applying prior art, the aforementioned limitation will be interpreted in light of the specification to mean that the one or more folding sections comprise a v-shaped indentation, rather than requiring the presence of multiple v-shaped indentations.
Regarding claim 9, in the limitation reciting “…attached to one or both the first side layer and the second side layer”, the terms “the first side layer” and “the second side layer” lack proper antecedent basis in the claims.
It is noted that claim 1 was amended in the claim set filed 04/16/2026 to change the recitations of the “first side layer” and “second side layer” to “the first side material layer” and “the second side material layer”. For the purpose of applying prior art, the limitation in claim 9 will be interpreted as referring back to the first side material layer and second side material layer as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, in the limitation reciting “wherein the one or more additional layers comprises…”, the phrase “the one or more additional layers” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Although claim 9 sets forth that the board further includes one or more additional layers, claim 10 was amended to change its dependency from claim 9 to claim 1, such that claim 9 no longer establishes antecedence for the “one or more additional layers” recited in claim 10. For the purpose of applying prior art, the limitation in claim 10 will be interpreted to mean that the board further includes one or more additional layers attached to one or both of the first and second side material layers.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation reciting “wherein the two or more folding sections enable the folded waterproof foldable board to unfold to form a waterproof structure comprising the unfolded waterproof foldable board” is indefinite because the phrase “the folded waterproof foldable board” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Independent claim 1 recites that the one or more folding sections provide dual folding capabilities enabling inward and outward folding and unfolding to provide a waterproof foldable board. Neither of claims 1 or 13, from which claim 15 depends, expressly requires that the waterproof foldable board is present in a folded state; rather, the claims only require that the waterproof foldable board is capable of folding and unfolding. The limitation in claim 15 requiring that the folding sections enable the folded board to inwardly and outwardly unfold to form a waterproof structure comprising the unfolded board is interpreted as functional language that is satisfied by any folding sections that are capable of enabling the foldable board to fold and unfold in the manner claimed. It is not clear, however, whether this feature further limits the limitation in claim 1 requiring that the folding sections enable inward and outward folding and unfolding to provide a waterproof foldable board. Clarification from the Applicant is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation reciting “wherein the first and second waterproof non-woven fabric material layers comprise a fleece webbing” are indefinite because it is not clear how a non-woven fabric can comprise a fleece webbing.
The common definition of the term “webbing” is a strong narrow closely woven fabric designed for bearing weight and used especially for straps or upholstery (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/webbing). It is not clear how a non-woven fabric can be said to comprise a woven fabric material.
In looking to paragraph [0036] of the instant specification, the non-woven fabric material layer (37, 37’) on the first and second sides (13, 14) is said to be a fleece webbing that ensures secure anchoring of mortar to a board that is anchored to studs. This disclosure is also unclear for the reasons presented above. In paragraph [0037], it is said that the first and second fabric layers (37, 37’) may comprise a waterproof non-woven fleece material. For the purpose of applying prior art, the limitation in claim 22 will be interpreted as being satisfied by first and second waterproof non-woven fabric layers which comprise a fleece material, consistent with the disclosure in paragraph [0037] of the instant specification.
Regarding claim 24, the limitation reciting “further including attaching one or more additional layers to the first waterproof non-woven fabric material layer, the second waterproof non-woven fabric material layer, or both the first and second waterproof non-woven fabric material layers” is indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by the term “attaching” in the context of the claimed invention.
The preamble of the claim is directed to a foldable shower board, such that the limitation reciting “further including…” would be expected to recite an additional structural feature of the claimed article. However, the phrase “further including attaching” appears to refer to an additional step of processing the board, such that it is not clear if the claim specifically requires that the board further includes one or more additional layers, or if the claim merely requires that the step of attaching one or more additional layers may be performed.
In looking to paragraph [0037] of the instant specification, other embodiments of the invention are said to include one or more additional layers attached to the first side (13) or the second side (14) of the board, where these layers may include
Regarding claim 25, the limitation reciting “wherein the one or more additional layers are selected from the group consisting of … or any combination thereof” is indefinite because the format of the Markush claim is improper. As explained in MPEP 2117(I), alternatives may be set forth as “a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C” or “wherein the material is A, B, or C”. In the instant case, the limitation should be amended to recite --wherein the one or more additional layers are selected from the group consisting of … and any combination thereof-- in order to set forth a proper Markush group.
Regarding claims 3-8, 11-16, and 23, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claims 1 and 21.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 16, 21, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bladd-Symms (WO 2022/112797, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Bladd-Symms teaches a laminated panel (foldable shower board, waterproof one-piece board structure) comprising a first and a second layer (500, 520) of self-reinforced polymer with a foam layer (550; inner core matrix) between (p. 40, Ln 11-36; see Fig. 21(b) reproduced below). The first and second layers may be composed of a plurality of consolidated layers (501, 502, 521, 522) of self-reinforced polymer (p. 40, Ln 31-32), wherein one or more of the plurality of layers (501, 502) within the first layer (500) can be taken to correspond to the claimed first side material layer. A valley (540; folding section, v-shaped indentation) is formed to cut through the second layer (520) of self-reinforced polymer and partially through the foam layer, wherein the deepest point of the valley provides the pivot of the hinge formed in the panel (p. 40, Ln 14-18).
PNG
media_image1.png
252
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in Fig. 21(b) above, a lining layer (570) may be provided to cover at least the walls of the valley, where the lining layer may be a nylon fabric (p. 13, Ln 22-26; p. 41, Ln 3-7). Bladd-Symms teaches that the valley may comprise a V-shaped cut-out, which provides structural stability at the hinge, as the faces of the V-shaped valley abut each other in the folded position of the hinge (p. 13, Ln 1-5). The laminated panel is therefore a one-piece board which is separated into two or more panels by the V-shaped valley, which provides dual folding capabilities enabling inward and outward folding and unfolding (p. 3, Ln 31-p. 4, Ln 3). As shown in Fig. 21(b), the faces of the valley include the lining layer (570). When the lining layer, either alone or in combination with the second layer (520) is taken to correspond to the claimed second side material layer, the angled interior surface walls are considered to be composed entirely of the second side material layer.
Bladd-Symms further teaches that the self-reinforced layers (500, 520) may be any polyolefin, such as self-reinforced polypropylene, and that the foam layer (550) may be microcellular polypropylene or expanded polypropylene (p. 41, Ln 32-p. 42, Ln 1). Therefore, the first layer (500; first side material layer), the foam layer (550; inner core matrix), and the lining layer (570) and second layer (520) (second side material layer, angled interior waterproof surface walls) all comprise a waterproof durable thermoplastic polymer material.
Regarding claim 3, Bladd-Symms teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Bladd-Symms teaches that the self-reinforced layers (500, 520) may be any polyolefin, such as self-reinforced polypropylene, and that the foam layer (550) may be microcellular polypropylene or expanded polypropylene (p. 41, Ln 32-p. 42, Ln 1), what that the waterproof durable thermoplastic polymer material comprises polypropylene.
Regarding claim 4, Bladd-Symms teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. It is noted that the limitation reciting that the waterproof durable thermoplastic polymer material comprises a recycled plastic material or a partially recycled plastic material is a product-by-process limitation, where the patentability of the product does not depend upon its method of production. See MPEP 2113. The limitation requiring that the polymer material is “recycled” or “partially recycled” does not patentably distinguish from a plastic material that was not recycled, as the resulting structure of the plastic material is identical. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a nonobvious difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Bladd-Symms further teaches that self-reinforced polymer can typically be recycled (p. 1, Ln 23), thus indicating that the first and second layers of self-reinforced polymer may comprise a recycled or partially recycled plastic material.
Regarding claim 5, Bladd-Symms teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Bladd-Symms teaches that the foam layer (550; inner core matrix) may be a microcellular polypropylene or expanded polypropylene (p. 41, Ln 32-p. 42, Ln 1), wherein the microcellular or expanded foam has a geometric configuration that provides the panel with mechanical integrity and strength.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Bladd-Symms teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the valley (one or more folding sections) extends linearly across the panel (p. 12, Ln 36), such that the valley resides along a length or a height of the panel.
Regarding claim 9, Bladd-Symms teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Bladd-Symms teaches that the first and second layers (500, 520) may be composed of a plurality of consolidated layers (501, 502, 521, 522) of self-reinforced polymer (p. 40, Ln 31-32; Fig. 21(b)), such that when the consolidated layers (501, 521) are taken to correspond to the claimed first and second side material layers, the layers (502, 522) correspond to the claimed additional layers which are attached to the first and second side layers.
Regarding claim 16, Bladd-Symms teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. With respect to the preamble limitation in claim 1 reciting “A foldable shower board” and the limitation in claim 16 reciting “wherein the one or more of the waterproof foldable board comprises a foldable shower structure…”, it is noted that the limitations directed to the claimed article being a shower board or comprising a shower structure are interpreted as statements of purpose or intended use. See MPEP 2111.02(II). Any waterproof foldable board which is capable of performing as a foldable shower board or a foldable shower structure as claimed is considered to satisfy the claimed limitations. Given that the panel taught by Bladd-Symms is intended for use in lightweight and robust packaging and transportation items (such as cases, boxes, and bags) (p. 1, Ln 27-33), the prior art panel is considered to be capable of functioning as a foldable shower wall, foldable shower bench, or the like, thus satisfying the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 21, Bladd-Symms teaches a laminated panel (foldable shower board, waterproof one-piece board structure) comprising a first and a second layer (500, 520) of self-reinforced polymer with a foam layer (550; inner core matrix) between (p. 40, Ln 11-36; Fig. 21(b)). The first and second layers may be composed of a plurality of consolidated layers (501, 502, 521, 522) of self-reinforced polymer (p. 40, Ln 31-32), wherein one or more of the plurality of layers (501, 502) within the first layer (500) can be taken to correspond to the claimed first side material layer.
A valley (540; folding section, v-shaped indentation) is formed to cut through the second layer (520) of self-reinforced polymer and partially through the foam layer, wherein the deepest point of the valley provides the pivot of the hinge formed in the panel (p. 40, Ln 14-18). As shown in Fig. 21(b), a lining layer (570) may be provided to cover at least the walls of the valley, where the lining layer may be a nylon fabric (p. 13, Ln 22-26; p. 41, Ln 3-7). Bladd-Symms teaches that the valley may comprise a V-shaped cut-out, which provides structural stability at the hinge, as the faces of the V-shaped valley abut each other in the folded position of the hinge (p. 13, Ln 1-5). The laminated panel is therefore a one-piece board which is separated into two or more panels by the V-shaped valley, which provides dual folding capabilities enabling inward and outward folding and unfolding (p. 3, Ln 31-p. 4, Ln 3). As shown in Fig. 21(b), the faces of the valley include the lining layer (570). When the lining layer, either alone or in combination with one or more consolidated layers (521, 522) of the second layer (520) is taken to correspond to the claimed second side material layer, the angled interior surface walls are considered to be composed entirely of the second side material layer.
Bladd-Symms further teaches that the self-reinforced layers (500, 520) may be any polyolefin, such as self-reinforced polypropylene, and that the foam layer (550) may be microcellular polypropylene or expanded polypropylene (p. 41, Ln 32-p. 42, Ln 1). Therefore, the first layer (500; first side material layer), the foam layer (550; inner core matrix), and the lining layer (570) and second layer (520) (second side material layer, angled interior waterproof surface walls) all comprise a waterproof durable thermoplastic polymer material.
Bladd-Symms further teaches that the first and second layers (500, 520) may be composed of a plurality of consolidated layers (501, 502, 521, 522) of self-reinforced polymer, wherein a single layer may be formed from stretched strands or extruded fibers of the polymer material which are formed into a layer by heating and compression of the strands (waterproof non-woven layer) (p. 37, Ln 20-24; p. 40, Ln 31-32; Fig. 21(b)). Therefore, the consolidated layers (501, 502, 521, 522) other than those taken to correspond to the claimed first and second side material layers are considered to correspond to the claimed first and second waterproof non-woven fabric material layers which are attached to the first and second side material layers.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Bladd-Symms teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above and further teaches that the first and/or second layer of self-reinforced polymer (500, 520) is each formed from two or more consolidated layers, where the number of consolidated layers may be between 2 and 12 layers (p. 13, Ln 27-31). Therefore, when the first and/or second layer of self-reinforced polymer contains 3 or more consolidated layers, the panel is considered to include an additional waterproofing material layer attached to either the first and/or second waterproof non-woven fabric material layer as claimed.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Van De Steene et al. (US 2018/0281900, previously cited).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, and 6, Van De Steene et al. teaches a panel (110; foldable shower board, waterproof one-piece board structure) comprising a first flexible watertight layer (114; first side material layer), a second stiffer layer (112; inner core matrix), and a third layer (116; second side material layer) ([0075], Figs. 1-2). A fold (120; folding section) is made by removing a wedge shape (v-shaped indentation) from the second layer, or by applying a corresponding groove ([0075], Figs. 1-2). As shown in Figs. 1-2, each of the one or more folds (120) comprises a v-shaped indentation each having a pair of angled interior waterproof surface walls facing each other that are composed entirely of the third layer (116). Van De Steene et al. teaches that the fold (120) having an angle of 90° is capable of inward folding such that the first layer (114) is on the outside of the angle ([0076]-[0077]). Given that the first layer is said to be flexible, the v-shaped indentation is also considered to be capable of outward folding and unfolding.
Van De Steene et al. teaches that the first layer can be made of PET, polyester, COC, polyamide, polystyrene, polycarbonate, PVC, or a self-reinforced polypropylene material known as Curv ([0022], [0063]-[0064]). The second layer can contain a material with a honeycomb structure and may be formed of polypropylene ([0033], [0067]). The third layer may be formed of flexible PVC material [0075]. Therefore, the first layer which forms the first side material layer, the second layer which forms the inner core matrix, and the third layer which forms the second side material layer and the pair of angled interior waterproof surface walls all comprise a waterproof durable thermoplastic polymer material as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Van De Steene et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. It is noted that the limitation reciting that the waterproof durable thermoplastic polymer material comprises a recycled plastic material or a partially recycled plastic material is a product-by-process limitation, where the patentability of the product does not depend upon its method of production. See MPEP 2113. The limitation requiring that the plastic material is “recycled” or “partially recycled” does not patentably distinguish from a plastic material that was not recycled, as the resulting structure of the plastic material is identical. Therefore, the waterproof durable thermoplastic polymer material used to form the first, second, and third layers in the panel taught by Van De Steene et al. is identical to that of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Van De Steene et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As shown in Figs. 4 and 5, the panel has a plurality of folds (120) which extend along the horizontal and vertical directions of the panel, thus corresponding to the claimed one or more folding sections which reside along a length and a height of the board.
Regarding claim 9, Van De Steene et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the first layer and the second layer can each consist of multiple layers, such as glue layers, multiple layers of self-reinforced polypropylene embedded in normal polypropylene, or an equivalent of the second layer or another layer provided on both sides of the first layer [0022].
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Van De Steene et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As shown in Figs. 4 and 5, the panel includes a single fold (120) which extends in the horizontal direction and resides at a mid-section of the panel, separating the panel into which equally sized portions, thus enabling the portions to fold onto each other to provide the panel in a folded state as shown in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 16, Van De Steene et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. With respect to the preamble limitation in claim 1 reciting “A foldable shower board” and the limitation in claim 16 reciting “wherein the one or more of the waterproof foldable board comprises a foldable shower structure…”, it is noted that the limitations directed to the claimed article being a shower board or comprising a shower structure are interpreted as statements of purpose or intended use. See MPEP 2111.02(II). Any waterproof foldable board which is capable of performing as a foldable shower board or a foldable shower structure as claimed is considered to satisfy the claimed limitations. Given that the panel taught by Van De Steene et al. is intended for use as a boat or vessel, in sturdy watertight packaging, roofs for mobile homes, etc. ([0012], Figs. 4-5), the prior art panel is considered to be capable of functioning as a foldable shower wall, foldable shower bench, or the like, thus satisfying the claimed limitations.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bladd-Symms (WO 2022/112797, previously cited) as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Snyder et al. (US 2001/0029718, previously cited).
Regarding claims 10 and 23, Bladd-Symms teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 21 above. Bladd-Symms teaches that the first and second layers (500, 520) may be composed of a plurality of consolidated layers (501, 502, 521, 522) of self-reinforced polymer, wherein a single layer may be formed from stretched strands or extruded fibers of the polymer material which are formed into a layer by heating and compression of the strands (waterproof non-woven layers) (p. 37, Ln 20-24; p. 40, Ln 31-32; Fig. 20(b)), such that when the consolidated layers (501, 521) are taken to correspond to the claimed first and second side layers, the layers (502, 522) correspond to the claimed additional layers which are attached to the first and second side layers. Although Bladd-Symms teaches that the laminated panel can be used as an edge trim to prevent wearing, fraying, or delamination of an object which it is wrapped around (p. 8, Ln 21-p. 9, Ln 7), the reference does not expressly teach that the one or more additional layers has a marking pattern matrix as claimed.
However, in the analogous art of foldable structures, Snyder et al. teaches a wall covering panel (10) comprising flaps (26, 30) defined by score lines (28, 32), which can be folded at a 90° angle to facilitate installation at a corner ([0049], [0052], Figs. 1-7). Snyder et al. teaches that at least one face (12, 14) of the wall covering panel can be provided with a grid pattern (36; marking pattern matrix) that allows the person installing the panel to quickly measure dimensions thereon ([0053], Fig. 3A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laminated panel taught by Bladd-Symms by including a grid pattern (marking pattern matrix) on one or more of the outer layers, as suggested by Snyder et al., in order to enable measurements to be made using the grid pattern. The grid pattern would also be capable of being used as an alignment guide for easy and accurate installation of the laminated panel, for example, where the straight lines of the grid pattern enables a user to ensure that the laminated panel is correctly aligned with the edge of an object when being used as an edge trim thereon.
Claims 13-15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bladd-Symms (WO 2022/112797, previously cited) as applied to claims 1 and 21 above.
Regarding claim 13, Bladd-Symms teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the planar component may be a panel or wall of a packaging or transportation item (e.g., a case, bag, or box), wherein the panel has folds in the form of a groove to define or divide the panel into sections or portions (p. 9, Ln 20-33; p. 10, Ln 20-p. 11, Ln 4). Figures 22(b) and 22(c) illustrate an embodiment of a laminated panel having three hinges (700; folding sections) spaced across the panel to form four sections (panels) separated from one another by the hinges, wherein the panel forms a rectangular box upon folding the panel along the hinges.
The embodiment shown in Figs. 22(b)-(c) differs from the claimed invention in that the hinges are not equally spaced and thus do not form equally sized sections. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the hinges at equal spacing from one another, thereby forming equally sized sections in the panel, in order to form a box having equally sized top, bottom, and side sections. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the relative dimensions of the respective sections of the panel, for example by providing the hinges at an equal spacing, in order to form a box having the desired size and/or proportions. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Bladd-Symms teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above and further teaches that the valley (540; folding section) is formed to cut through the second layer (520) of self-reinforced polymer and partially through the foam layer (550), but does not cut through or penetrate into the first layer (500) of self-reinforced polymer, thus forming the pivot of the hinge (p. 40, Ln 11-p. 41, Ln 2; Figs. 19(b), 20(b)). Given that the valley is said to operate as the pivot of the hinge, the valleys formed in the laminated panel shown in Figs. 22(b)-(c) enable the sections to fold outwards and collapse onto each other to provide the panel in a folded state, and enable the sections to inwardly and outwardly fold and unfold to form a waterproof structure.
Regarding claim 22, Bladd-Symms teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above but differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach that the first and second waterproof non-woven fabric material layers comprise a fleece material. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the panel taught by Bladd-Symms by including a fleece material along with the first and second waterproof non-woven fabric material layers in order to impart the desired surface properties to the first and second sides of the panel. For example, in the case where the panel is used as a box or container for transporting items (as shown in Fig. 22), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a fleece material on the first and second sides of the panel in order to impart a soft tactile surface texture to the interior and exterior surfaces of the box.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van De Steene et al. (US 2018/0281900, previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Snyder et al. (US 2001/0029718, previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Van De Steene et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Van De Steene et al. further teaches that a polyester non-woven micro fleece layer (waterproof non-woven layer) may be attached to the first layer ([0075]), the reference does not expressly teach that the additional layer has a marking pattern matrix as claimed.
However, in the analogous art of foldable structures, Snyder et al. teaches a wall covering panel (10) comprising flaps (26, 30) defined by score lines (28, 32), which can be folded at a 90° angle to facilitate installation at a corner ([0049], [0052], Figs. 1-7). Snyder et al. teaches that at least one face (12, 14) of the wall covering panel can be provided with a grid pattern (36; marking pattern matrix) that allows the person installing the panel to quickly measure dimensions thereon ([0053], Fig. 3A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the panel taught by Van De Steene et al. by including a grid pattern (marking pattern matrix) on one or more of the outer layers, as suggested by Snyder et al., in order to enable measurements to be made using the grid pattern. The grid pattern would also be capable of being used as an alignment guide for easy and accurate installation of the panel, for example, where the straight lines of the grid pattern enables a user to ensure that the panel is folded in a perfectly symmetrical manner such that a boat formed therefrom will be properly balanced.
Response to Arguments
Response-Drawings
The previous objection to the drawings is overcome by the replacement drawings provided in the response filed April 26, 2026.
Response-Specification
The previous objection to the specification is overcome by the Applicant’s amendment to paragraph [0037] in the response filed April 16, 2026.
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objections to claims 4 and 9 are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response filed April 16, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 1-14 and 16 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 are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 14 in the response filed April 16, 2026. The previous rejection of claim 15 was not addressed by amendment or arguments and thus has been maintained.
In light of the amendments to the claims, new issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are presented in the office action above with respect to claims 1, 9, 10, 21, 22, 24, and 25.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-16 of the remarks filed April 16, 2026, with respect to the previous rejections based on Bladd-Symms and Wirrick 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.
In light of the amendments to claim 1, the previous rejections based on Wirrick have been withdrawn, the rejections based on Bladd-Symms have been modified to address the new combination of limitations, and a new grounds of rejection is presented based on Van De Steene et al. The Applicant’s arguments will be addressed insofar as they apply to the new grounds of rejection over Bladd-Symms.
The Applicant argues on page 12 that Bladd-Symms does not disclose or suggest that the valley surfaces are composed entirely of the second layer, nor that its foam layer is a thermoplastic polymer material as claimed.
These arguments are not persuasive. As explained in the prior art rejections above, the lining layer (570) taught by Bladd-Symms can be taken, either alone or in combination with the one or more of the consolidated layers (521, 522) of the second layer (520), to correspond to the claimed second side material layer. Thus, as shown in Fig. 21(b), the surface walls of the valley (540) are composed entirely of the second layer. Moreover, Bladd-Symms teaches that the foam layer (550) may be formed of a microcellular polypropylene or expanded polypropylene (p. 41, Ln 35-p. 42, Ln 1), which correspond to the claimed thermoplastic polymer material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Henry (US 2,966,687) teaches a boat comprising hull sections consisting of an inner reinforcement panel (20a) encased by inner and outer flexible and waterproof covers (75, 76), wherein the panel are beveled (79) towards their inner faces (col 3, Ln 58-col 4, Ln 10; Figs. 11, 13).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights