DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment filed on December 29, 2025, claims 1, 3 – 5, 8 – 20 are pending. Claim 1 has been amended and claims 2 and 6 – 7 have been canceled. Claims 11 – 20 have been withdrawn from consideration.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Analysis
The Examiner notes that the recited air permeability range is caused by the holes. Furthermore, present claim 1 recites that the holes are components of both the base layer and surface layer. As air permeability is a property, a question arises as to what object or surfaces’ air permeability is required to be within the recited range. Nevertheless, the instant specification appears to suggest that the air permeability recited is the air permeability of the ventilation sheet as a whole, measured from the exiting surface from which air flows, i.e. the air permeability at the surface layer, where air flows from the bottom of the base layer and vice-versa. See page 21 Evaluation results and page 9 lines 5 – 15 of the instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejections of claims 6 and 7 under 35 USC § 103 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant cancellation of the claims.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8 – 9 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. US2020/0398548 A1 (hereafter “Takahashi”) in view of Arai JP2010077554 A (hereafter “Arai”, machine translation provided), Ebihara JP2004073429A (hereafter “Ebihara”, machine translation provided), Powell et al. US 2021/0188138 A1 (hereafter “Powell”), Yun et al. US 2012/0094564 A1 (hereafter “Yun”), and optionally Oschatz US 2013/0157029 A1 (hereafter “Oschatz”).
Regarding claim 1:
Takahashi is directed to a skin material [ventilation sheet] and method of forming the skin material (Abstract; [0077]). As depicted in Fig. 3, reproduced below, Takahashi discloses that the skin material comprises the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a skin layer, a foam layer, and a base fabric layer with ([0069] – [0074]). The method for making the skin material comprises: preparing the base fabric layer ([0079]) by e.g. knitting fiber yarns [mesh-net structure] ([0025], [0065]); interposing [disposing] the foam layer [intermediate layer on the base layer] between the base fabric layer and the skin layer ([0083]); and layering [disposing] the skin/top layer on the base fabric layer and interposed foam layer ([0083]). The top layer may be a synthetic leather ([0109]). All the layers comprise holes 2 ([0007], [0055])
Takahashi does not expressly teach:
that the base layer comprises a flame-retardant polyethylene terephthalate (FRPET) fiber or PET fiber;
that the intermediate layer comprises a PET fiber;
that the surface layer comprises a PET composite fiber, wherein the PET composite fiber comprises PET fiber and FRPET fiber;
a further step of performing both an anti-fouling finishing treatment and a flame-retardant treatment;
wherein air permeability caused by the holes ranges from about 150 to about 180
c
m
3
/
c
m
2
/
s
; and
that the amount of the flame-retardant PET fiber in the base layer and the surface layer is about 50 to 85 wt% on the basis of the total weight of the ventilation sheet, wherein 50 to 75 wt% of the flame-retardet PET fiber of the ventilation sheet is in the surface layer and an amount of about 0 to 10 wt% of the flame-retardant PET in the base layer, on the basis of the total weight of the ventilation sheet.
With regards to the base layer comprising a FRPET fiber or PET fiber:
Arai is directed to a flame retardant base fabric that can be used as a base fabric for flame retardant synthetic layer and methods of making such a base fabric ([0001], [0010]). Arai discloses a step of knitting flame-retardant polyester fibers and non-flame retardant polyester fibers ([0032], [0036]). The polyester fibers may be e.g. polyethylene terephthalate copolymerized with a flame retardancy imparting agent ([0021], [0026]). Such fibers are inexpensive, have excellent heat resistance and dimensional stability and impart a flame-retardant effect onto the fabric ([0017] – [0019]). In some embodiments, the flame-retardant polyester fibers can be twisted with a non-flame-retardant polyester fiber to form a composite twisted yarn [composite polyester fiber] ([0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Takahashi by preparing a base layer comprising a FRPET fiber, PET fiber or PET composite fiber comprised of PET fiber and FRPET fiber because Arai teaches that base layers comprising such materials impart flame-retardant properties while also remaining inexpensive.
With regards to the intermediate layer comprising a PET fiber:
Ebihara is directed to a breathable sheet used for a seat, char or the like equipped in a vehicle (translation page 1 lines 10 – 16). As depicted in Fig. 1, a seat comprises a breathable seat cover 4 covering surfaces of a seat body (page 4 lines 3 – 15). The breathable seat cover has a three-layer structure with a polyester fiber skin material, a polyester fiber cotton [corresponding to intermediate layer] as a wadding, and a polyester fiber fabric [corresponding to a base layer] (page 5 lines 1 – 5). Ebihara discloses a preference for the cotton made of polyester fiber because such a material improves the stuffiness of the seat cover (page 5 lines 5 – 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Takahashi in view of Arai to have an intermediate layer comprising a cotton containing polyester fiber because Ebihara teaches that such an intermediate layer has improved stuffiness.
With regards to the polyester fiber being a PET fiber, Arai discloses that polyesters in common use include polyethylene terephthalate [PET] ([0021]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Takahashi in view of Arai and Ebihara by having the polyester cotton comprising polyester fibers be comprised of PET fibers because as taught by Arai, PET fibers are known to be suitable polyester fibers. The courts have held that the selection of a known material/device/product based for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
With regards to the surface layer comprises a PET composite fiber, wherein the PET composite fiber comprises PET fiber and FRPET fiber:
Powell is directed to padding components for the intelligent distribution of airflow in vehicle seats (Abstract). As depicted in Figs. 1 and 2A, Powell discloses a cross section of an air distributor component comprising a top layer [corresponding to a surface layer], a fibrous layer [corresponding to an intermediate layer] and a bottom layer [corresponding to a base layer] ([0027]). Powell discloses that the top layer and bottom layer are independently knitted fabric layers [surface layer with a mesh-net structure] and can independently be comprised of polyester ([0028]). Both the top layer and bottom layer can define inlet openings for airflow that are defined by knitting density over desired regions of flow ([0029], [0032]). By having regions that are defined by knit filament density, air may be directed intelligently as the crushing by a seated user does not restrict air flow ([0002], [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Takahashi in view of Arai and Ebihara by disposing a surface/top layer that is also a knitted polyester fabric [mesh-net], such as the knitted polyester fabric of Arai for the surface layer as well as for the base layer, and knitted to have patterned density regions having less density because Powell teaches that such fabrics allow for tailored definition of air flow channels that allow air to purposefully exit in specific areas. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to specifically consider and dispose a top layer that is the same fabric layer used in the base layer – including a PET composite fiber – because Arai teaches that their fabric layer improves flame retardancy.
With regards to the amount of the flame-retardant PET fiber in the base layer and the surface layer is about 50 to 85 wt% on the basis of the total weight of the ventilation sheet, wherein 50 to 75 wt% of the flame-retardant PET fiber of the ventilation sheet is in the surface layer and an amount of about 0 to 10 wt% of the flame-retardant PET in the base layer, on the basis of the total weight of the ventilation sheet:
As discussed above, the modification of the method of Takahashi in view of Arai and Ebihara with the teachings of Powell and Arai render obvious a resultant ventilation sheet having a base layer comprising a flame-retardant PET fiber or PET fiber and a surface/top layer comprised of a knitted polyester fabric having flame-retardant PET fibers.
Powell also discloses that the top layer and bottom layer are independently knitted fabric layers [surface layer with a mesh-net structure] and can independently be comprised of polyester ([0028]). Thus, Powell reasonably suggests that compositions within each layer are independently selected.
Arai discloses that the weight ratio of phosphorous-containing flame-retardant polyester fiber to the entire base fabric may be 1.7% or more ([0031]).
In view of the prior art as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would been suggested that the weight ratio of phosphorous-containing flame-retardant polyester fiber to the entire top/surface layer fabric may be 1.7% or more. In addition to the modifications of Takahashi discussed above and outside a showing of unexpected results, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to a step of performing both an anti-fouling finishing treatment and a flame-retardant treatment:
Yun is directed to methods for anti-stain treatment of fabrics (Abstract). Yun discloses that their method comprises: immersing a car seat fabric in an aqueous solution containing telomerized perfluoroalkyl acrylate copolymer [fluorine-resin based antifouling agent] and an isocyanate crosslinking agent [isocyanate-based cross-linking agent] (Abstract; [0009], [0017] – [0018], [0024]); dehydrating, then drying and then heat treating the immersed fabric ([0025] – [0027]); and then coating the heat-treated fabric with a flame retardant ([0028] – [0030]); which Yun describes as a desired property of such fabrics. Yun also discloses that the anti-stain treatment allows for improved stain resistance compared to prior references and to meet industry standards ([0006], [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Takahashi in view of Arai, Ebihara, and Powell by including a step performing flame-retardant treatment and anti-fouling treatment because Yun teaches that their method provides improved stain resistance to fabrics.
Optionally and additionally, Oschatz is directed to auto and aircraft seat cover fabrics and methods of forming such fabrics (Abstract; [0028], [0040], [0058] – [0070]). Oschatz discloses that finishing such cover fabrics with a bactericide solution [anti-fouling treatment] and a flame retardant finishing [flame-retardant treatment]. Oschatz discloses that such treatments are known to be part of existing requirement profiles of the auto and aircraft industry ([0136]).
Therefore, it would have been additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Takahashi in view of Arai, Ebihara, and Powell by including a step performing flame-retardant treatment and anti-fouling treatment because Oschatz teaches that such treatments are standard in the auto and aircraft industry to meet existing requirement profiles.
With regards to the air permeability caused by the holes ranges from about 150 to about 180
c
m
3
/
c
m
2
/
s
.
Ebihara discloses that their breathable seat/skin cover’s air permeability can be set to 10
c
c
/
c
m
2
/
s
( i.e.
c
m
3
/
c
m
2
/
s
) or more (page 3 lines 1 –11). Ebihara further discloses that the air permeability through the seat cover is derived from a perforated (i.e. full of holes) skin material, perforated skin and fiber wadding (page 8 lines 9 – 16). Furthermore, Ebihara discloses a relationship, inter alia, between the air permeability of the breathable seat/skin cover and the temperature rise at the point air flows from the seat/skin cover (page 8 line 15 – page 9 line 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Takahasi in view of Arai, Ebihara, Powell, Yun and optionally Oschatz to set , by e.g. hole size, number, fabric density; the air permeability within the claimed range as a matter of routine experimentation in order to obtain a desired temperature profile of the skin cover as taught by Ebihara. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 3:
Arai teaches that the thickness of the polyester fiber may be between 75 to 300 denier ([0023]). In addition to the modification of Takahashi discussed above, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5:
Arai teaches that the thickness of the polyester fiber may be between 75 to 300 denier ([0023]). Likewise, as Arai teaches that a composite fiber is a twisted yarn between two polyester fibers, Arai suggests a composite thickness between 150 to 600 denier, thus overlapping with the claimed range. In addition to the modification of Takahashi discussed above, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 8 and 9:
As discussed above, Yun discloses that the anti-fouling agent is a fluorine-resin based antifouling agent and that an isocyanate-based crosslinking agent is present. Yun further discloses that the anti-fouling agent is present at 2 to 10 wt% in the aqueous solution when the solid content of the solution is 24 wt%, wherein the solid content may vary between 20 – 30 wt% ([0008] – [0009], [0022]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Yun also discloses that the crosslinking agent is present at 0.3 to 1 wt % of crosslinking agent and that if the content of crosslinking agent is too low, a desired crosslinking effect may not be attained ([0023]). At 1 wt%, the amount of crosslinking agent is close to the lower bound of the claimed range, therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the amount of 2 to 5wt% isocyanate- based cross-linking agent as a matter of routine experimentation in order to arrive at effective amounts of isocyanate-based cross-linking agent for given concentrations of antifouling agent. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Claim 4 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Arai, Ebihara, Powell, Yun and optionally Oschatz as applied to claims 1, 3, 5 – 9 above, and further in view of Byong KR 20-2011-0001360A (machine translation provided, hereafter “Byong”).
Regarding claim 4:
Takahashi in view of Arai, Ebihara, and Powell do not expressly teach that the thickness of the PET fiber included in the intermediate layer ranges from 20 to 30 Denier.
Byong is directed to an artificial leather fabric having a spontaneous cushion layer/pile yarn layer [corresponding to the intermediate layer] of polyester fibers (Page 1 lines 5 – 11). Byong discloses that the cushion layer/pile yarn layer have a yarn thickness up to 100 denier, e.g. 10 to 100 denier (page 4 lines 15 – 20, page 14 Claims 1, 4). Byong further discloses that when the denier of the pile yarn layer is less than 10 the cushioning feeling of the layer is slow, but when it is more than 100 denier the cushioning property is hard to be exhibited (page 7 lines 10 – 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Takahashi in view of Arai, Ebihara, and Powell by using an intermediate layer comprising yarns having PET fibers within the claimed denier range as a matter of routine experimentation to achieve a desired level of cushioning within the ventilation sheet, as taught by Byong. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 10 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Arai, Ebihara, Powell, Yun and optionally Oschatz as applied to claims 1, 3, 5 – 9 above, and further in view of Oschatz (i.e. Oschatz is required).
Regarding claim 10:
Takahashi in view of Arai, Ebihara, Powell and Yun does not expressly teach that the flame-retardant treatment is performed with a flame-retardant aqueous solution comprising a flame-retardant in an amount greater than 3 wt% and less than 10 wt% base on the basis of the total weight of the flame- retardant aqueous composition.
However, Oschatz discloses that their flame retardant finishing includes a liquor/solution comprising 100g/L [i.e. 9.1% wt retardant/basis aqueous composition] to 500g/L [33.3% wt retardant/basis aqueous composition] of a phosphate or silicone flame retardant products ([0144] – [0146]), overlapping with the claimed amount of flame-retardant. Furthermore, Takahashi also discloses that the product concentration may be optimized to ensure that the good dry and wet rubbing fastness of subsequent reactive dyes for the fabric are not impaired ([0146]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Takahashi in view of Arai, Ebihara, and Powell to have arrived at the claimed amounts of flame-retardant as a matter of routine experimentation to ensure that subsequent reactive dying of fabrics is not impaired. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
a.) Arai fails to teach or suggest "an amount of the flame-retardant PET fiber in the base layer and the surface layer is about 50 to 85 wt¾, on the basis of the total weight of the ventilation sheet" in combination with "wherein the ventilation sheet comprises an amount of about 50 to 75 wt% of the flame-retardant PET fiber in the surface layer and an amount of about 0 to 10 wt% of the flame-retardant PET fiber in the base layer, on the basis of the total weight of the ventilation", as recited in amended claim 1. Takahashi, Ebihara, Yun, and Oschatz are relied upon for other claim features and fail to remedy these deficiencies.
In response to the applicant's arguments, please consider the following comments.
a.) In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation is found in case law in combination with the teachings of both Arai and Powell, which is also a part of the rejection on record. Applicant does not address the teachings of Powell in their argument concerning the limitation in contention.
While Examiner agrees that Arai is silent regarding any weight ratio of flame-retardant polyester fiber within a skin layer1, Powell renders obvious the modification of the method of Takashi in view of the other prior art of record to dispose a surface layer comprising a PET composite fiber on the recited intermediate layer, including where the surface layer a knitted polyester fabric manufactured by the method of Arai. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
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 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 JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
1 The Examiner notes that Applicant argues that Arai is silent with regards to the “phosphorus-containing flame retardant polyester fiber”. However, the claim does not recite that the polyester fiber contains phosphorous. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Prosecution Insights