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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed Oct. 10, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-15 remain pending in the application.
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.
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 1-4, 6-9, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 3,542,617) in view of Agosti (WO2018158657) and Connett (US 3,930,921).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 9, 15, Watson discloses that, as illustrated in Fig., a flexible substrate 10 is coated with a viscous solution of polymer 14. In a solvent removal zone 18, the applied coating is heated to remove the solvent (col. 2, lines 19-28). Then, release sheet 20 is applied onto the surface of the plastic polymer. The resulting laminate is then passed to a compression zone such as a calendar 24 comprising one or more pressure rollers 25 (i.e., for embossing), plate press or the like pressure application means (col. 2, lines 36-46). In the curing zone 28, laminate 26 proceeds to a further solvent evaporation through heating (col. 2, lines 50-64). On the completion of the curing, release sheet 20 is stripped from the polymer surface (col. 2, lines 65-66). Watson discloses that, at least 50 percent or more of the solvent is removed (col. 5, lines 46-47).
However, Watson does not explicitly disclose water in the solvent. In the same field of endeavor, laminate, Agosti discloses, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 1A-1E, a method for making an upgraded and embossed laminar supporting element (item 1, Fig. 1G (page 16, lines 17-20)) comprising a supporting element (item 9, Fig. 1B (page 9, lines 25-26) (a leather (related to claim 15))) provided with several layers, comprising the following steps:
applying at least one base layer of an aqueous coating (items 10, 11, Fig. 1 (page 10, lines 27-35; page 11, lines 1-25 (i.e., the definition of “absolute moisture” is used to indicate the water content in the synthetic substance 11 (lines 21-25)))) to a surface of the supporting element;
treating said at least one layer so as to evaporate from said at least one layer between 20% and 80% of the amount of water and optional solvent initially present (page 11, lines 16-20 (i.e., the thermal treatment (i.e., by the heat treatment means 7 (page 11, lines 7-9) (related to claim 9)) is carried out to have a water content from 12% to 25% (or evaporate between 75% to 88% (overlapping the claimed range of 20% to 80%))));
applying on the thus dried coating at least one layer of a protective substance (page 12, lines 11-12 (i.e., a protective substance 4 (as shown in Fig. 1A))) instead of one layer of a lacquer;
treating said at least one layer of a lacquer so as to evaporate from said at least one layer between 20% and 80% of the amount of water and/or solvent initially present (page 11, lines 2-5 (i.e., by the heat treatment means 21 (page 15, lines 34-35)) (related to claim 9); page 4, lines 26-28 (i.e., the absolute moisture is included between 15% to 23% (or evaporate between 77% to 85% (overlapping the claimed range of 20% to 80%))));
applying on the thus dried protective layer at least one layer of foil (page 4, lines 7-8 (i.e., a supporting film (or item 12 in Fig. 1A (page 12, lines 11-12))));
exerting a pressure on the combination of supporting element (page 4, lines 15-21 (embossing) (by a cylinder 20a (Fig. 1D or page 10, lines 5-8) which is considered as a embossing element providing a pattern 102)) provided with said aqueous base coating layer, said protective layer and said foil layer in such a way so as to emboss the coated surface with morphological characteristics wherein the means for applying said pressure comprises an embossing pattern (item 102, Fig. 1D (page 10, lines 1-4));
removing said at least one layer of foil (page 16, lines 12-16 (by using the winding cylinder 51 to recover the supporting film 12 (as shown in Fig. 1G))).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watson to incorporate the teachings of Agosti to provide the aqueous coating having the amount of water (i.e., reduction of VOCs). Doing so would be possible to produce less expensive products, as recognized by Agosti (page 1, lines 23-27).
However, both Watson and Agosti do not explicitly disclose that, the protective layer is a lacquer (finish coating) having anti-sticking properties. In the same field of endeavor, finishing leather, Connett discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, the top coat of the leather finish comprises a hard, non-tacky nitrocellulose lacquer (related to claim 4). Finishes thus provided bond readily and permanently to the leather while simultaneously defining a hard, non-tacky finish thereon (col. 3, lines 1-7).
It is noticed that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2 in the teachings of Connett, leather substrates 11 to be finished are placed between a backing or supporting layer 12 and a release or transfer layer 13. … The release layer 13, on the other hand, is generally the composite of a carrier 15 desirably constituted of a paper or similar sheet material, and a permanent release stratum 16 having a transferable finish coating 17 thereon (col. 5, lines 60-68).
Here, the release layer 13 including the release stratum 16 (i.e., including 16a and 16b (col. 6, lines 8-14)) can be equivalence to the claimed release foil.
It is noticed that, Connett discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1 (especially in Stage A), the releasable finish coating 17 may comprise any of the above noted leather finishing compositions. Preferably, the finish coating incorporates a first or outer stratum 17a constituted of the aforesaid thermoplastic adhesive acrylic polymer coating for forming the base finish coat on the leather, and a second or inner stratum (17b) constituted of the hard, non-tacky nitrocellulose lacquer for forming the top coat of the finish (col. 6, lines 23-30).
Thus, Connett discloses that, at least the one side of the lacquer coat or finish on the leather provide the required releasable function (i.e., anti-sticking properties) to the release paper or web (or the foil).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified either Watson or Agosti to incorporate the teachings of Connett to provide that the top coating of the leather is hard, non-tacky nitrocellulose lacquer (coating). Doing so would be possible to provide sufficient flexibility to the leather to prevent cracking or rupturing, as recognized by Connett (col. 3, lines 1-16).
Regarding claim 2, Watson discloses that, at least 50 percent or more of the solvent is removed (col. 5, lines 46-47) (overlapping the claimed rang of 25% to 70%).
Further, Agosti discloses the amount of evaporated water in the coating of the leather (page 11, lines 16-18, evaporate between 75% to 88%). However, Agosti does not explicitly disclose that, the amount of water and optional solvent evaporated from the at least one aqueous base coating is between 25% and 70%.
Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Agosti discloses the claimed invention except for the amount of water and optional solvent evaporated from the at least one aqueous base coating is between 25% and 70%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Agosti since the claimed ranges (25% and 70%) and the prior art ranges (75% to 88%) are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties and further being motivated to improve consolidation/polymerization during the heat treatment.
Regarding claim 3, Watson discloses a viscous solution of polyurethane is coated to the flexible substrate (ABSTRACT). Agosti discloses the synthetic substance comprises a polyurethane resin (page 6, lines 31-32).
Regarding claim 6, Watson discloses Agosti discloses that, preferably, during the embossing step the temperature has a value included between 100 C and 180 C (overlapping the claimed range of 50 C to 150 C) (page 5, lines 33-34).
Regarding claim 7, Agosti discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1A, an optional top coat (item 4, Fig. 1A (the protective substance)) is an aqueous coating (page 12, 28-29 (i.e., by suitable emulsions)) based on a polyurethane dispersion (page 12, line 24). Agosti discloses that, applying at least one layer of a protective substance (page 4, line 7). Thus, Agosti discloses at least the one layer of the optional top coat (for protection).
Regarding claims 8, 14, Agosti discloses that, the at least one layer of an aqueous base coating (items 10 and 11, Fig.1 or 1C), the at least one-layer protective substance (item 4, Fig. 1A; it is noticed that, the protective layer is based on a polyurethane) and at least one optional top coat layer (page 4, line 7) are applied by using a spraying application or by means of a roller coater (as shown in Figs. 1, 1A-1G).
However, Agosti does not explicitly disclose that, the protective layer is a nitrocellulose lacquer (coating). Connett discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, the top coat of the leather finish comprises a hard, non-tacky nitrocellulose lacquer. Finishes thus provided bond readily and permanently to the leather while simultaneously defining a hard, non-tacky finish thereon (col. 3, lines 1-7).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wason (US 3,542,617), Agosti (WO2018158657) and Connett (US 3,930,921) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Grzesiak et al. (US 2014/0162073).
Regarding claims 10-11, the combination does not explicitly disclose the base aqueous coating has a viscosity of between 5 and 120 seconds on Ford Cup and the at least one layer of the base aqueous coating is applied in a small thickness of between 1.5 and 4.5 gram of dried matter per square foot. In the same field of endeavor, aqueous leather coating, Grzesiak discloses that, the aqueous leather coating composition can have a Ford 4 viscosity of less than or equal to 50 seconds ([0061], lines 6-8) (overlapping the claimed range of between 5 and 120 seconds on Ford Cup). Grzesiak discloses that, typical application rates of the aqueous leather coating treatment composition are in the range of 2.0 to 100 gram dry weight per square meter (i.e., 0.2 to 10.o gram dry weight per square foot) (overlapping the claimed range of between 1.5 and 4.5 gram of dried matter per square foot (related to claim 11)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Grzesiak to provide that the base aqueous coating has a viscosity of between 5 and 120 seconds on Ford Cup and the at least one layer of the base aqueous coating is applied in a small thickness of between 1.5 and 4.5 gram of dried matter per square foot. Doing so would be possible to have the coating leather with storage stability, mechanical properties, minimal embrittlement, and low fresh tack, as recognized by Grzesiak ([0002]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wason (US 3,542,617), Agosti (WO2018158657) and Connett (US 3,930,921) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kuwabara et al. (US 5,676,707).
Regarding claims 12-13, the combination of Agosti, Wason, and Connett does not explicitly disclose that, the lacquer layer is applied in a small thickness of below 1.0 gram of dried matter per square foot or the optional top coat layer is applied in a small thickness of below 0.5 and 1.5 gram of dried matter per square foot. In the same field of endeavor, leather treatment process, Kuwabara discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 7, the leather 91 gone through the leather coloring is subsequently further subjected to a treatment to spray a base coating material, followed by drying, and then coated with a lacquer to give the finishing (col. 17, lines 1-7). Further, Kuwabara discloses that, in a more preferred embodiment, the resin and the aggregate of particles are each imparted in an amount of not less than 0.01 g/m2 (or 0.001 g/ft2) to not more than 10 g/m2 (or 1.0 g/ft2) of the leather (overlapping the claimed ranges in claims 12 and 13)) (col. 3, lines 24-27).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Kuwabara to provide that the lacquer layer is applied in a small thickness of below 1.0 gram of dried matter per square foot or the optional top coat layer is applied in a small thickness of below 0.5 and 1.5 gram of dried matter per square foot. Doing so would be possible to provide a protection to the deterioration of the leather surface, as recognized by Kuwabara (col. 2, lines 33-44).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments in claim 1 that the reference Agosti to provide aqueous coating having the amount of water do not represent the core of the present invention, and are irrelevant for assessing obvious, it is not persuasive.
It is noticed Applicants’ remarks of “it is indeed well known in the art to work with aqueous bases and to evaporate the solvent…these are necessary but non-inventive measures”. That’s an admission on the record that these things are well known.
Regarding arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that nor does the difference between the cited prior art and the present invention reside in the mere identification of a lacquer having anti-sticking properties, it is not persuasive.
Connett discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, the top coat of the leather finish comprises a hard, non-tacky nitrocellulose lacquer. Finishes thus provided bond readily and permanently to the leather while simultaneously defining a hard, non-tacky finish thereon (col. 3, lines 1-7).
Regarding arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that none of the cited references, alone or in combination, discloses all the features of proposed amended independent claim 1, it is not persuasive.
At least, the release layer 13 including the release stratum 16 (i.e., including 16a and 16b (col. 6, lines 8-14)) can be equivalence to the claimed release foil.
It is noticed that, Connett discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1 (especially in Stage A), the releasable finish coating 17 may comprise any of the above noted leather finishing compositions. Preferably, the finish coating incorporates a first or outer stratum 17a constituted of the aforesaid thermoplastic adhesive acrylic polymer coating for forming the base finish coat on the leather, and a second or inner stratum (17b) constituted of the hard, non-tacky nitrocellulose lacquer for forming the top coat of the finish (col. 6, lines 23-30).
Thus, Connett discloses that, at least the one side of the lacquer coat or finish on the leather provide the required releasable function (i.e., anti-sticking properties) to the release paper or web (or the foil).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shibin Liang whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on (571)270 7001. 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).
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741