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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 is rejected for the recitation of “…the isocyanate prepolymer is 85-100%”. It is unclear what such a recitation is indicative of. It is believed Applicant is intended to claim that the isocyanate prepolymer is 85-100% of the adhesive composition. However, the claim does not state such. Further, even if the claim did state such, there would still be a 112 rejection as support does not appear to be in the specification as filed for such. The specification as filed states “The adhesives 220 may be a 68 GSM polyurethane (PUR) hot melt adhesive comprised of about 85-100% isocyanate prepolymer mixed with methylene biphenyl diisocyanate.”. From such, it appears the combination of the isocyanate prepolymer and the MDI are present at 85-100% of the hot melt adhesive. Moreover, the specification only states that the combination of the isocyanate prepolymer and the MDI are present at 85-100% of the hot melt adhesive is present when the adhesive is a 68 GSM polyurethane (PUR). Applicant is advised to amend the claim or cancel the claim.
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.
Claim 21 is 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.
Claim 21 is rejected for the recitation of “…the isocyanate prepolymer is 85-100%”. It is unclear what such a recitation is indicative of. It is believed Applicant is intended to claim that the isocyanate prepolymer is 85-100% of the adhesive composition. However, the claim does not state such. Please also see 112(a) rejection above. Applicant is advised to amend the claim or cancel the claim.
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, 3-5, 7-10, 13-15 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (DE 202011004902) in view of Helmeke et al. (PG Pub. 2012/0288720) in view of Schaeffer (DE 202004019330, hereinafter referred to as ‘330).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5 and 21, Schaefer teaches a non-natural material manufactured to provide aesthetics of natural hide with the material comprising a top layer (4) comprising a surface fabric (top layer comprises a fabric as taught in 0016) and treated to be directionalized in a uniform non-upward direction from the surface fabric thereby aesthetically mimicking natural hide (grain leather), a liquid barrier layer (can be construed as the polyurethane of the top layer, the adhesive between the top layer and the layer 3 or the polyamide film), a spacer fabric layer (layer 2) comprising top and bottom knit layers (layers 3 and 10) attached by cushioned yarn (layer 5) and the spacer fabric providing predefined cushioning for the material, a stability layer (considered to be the polyurethane adhesive between layer 10 and layer 6 or polyamide film configured to reduce curling at the edges of the material) and bottom layer (which can be construed as layer 6) [0009, 0016, 0019, 0024, 0027 and 0047].
Schaeffer teaches the polyurethane adhesive, but is silent regarding the specifics of the adhesive, However, Helmeke et al. teach hot melt polyurethane adhesive comprising isocyanate prepolymer and methylene bisphenyl diisocynate (which is also referred to as MDI) in order to provide improved strength and mechanical properties [Title, Abstract, 0028 and 0030-0031]. The isocyanate prepolymer is 85-100% [0030]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polyurethane adhesive of Helmeke et al. in Schaefer in order to provide improved strength and mechanical properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
The previous combination is silent regarding the polyester filaments and the surface fabric being knitted. However, ‘330 teaches a plurality of polyester filaments affixed to the surface of the knitted fabric in order to obtain a visible side of which has a good appearance and a good feel, which is lightfast, colorfast, flame-retardant, dirt-repellent and easy to care for, and which, above all, does not change its appearance after stress and retains its velour-like surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the plurality of polyester filaments affixed to the knitted surface of the fabric as taught by ‘330 in the previous combination in order to obtain a visible side of which has a good appearance and a good feel, which is lightfast, colorfast, flame-retardant, dirt-repellent and easy to care for, and which, above all, does not change its appearance after stress and retains its velour-like surface and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the liquid barrier layer is between the top layer and the spacer fabric layer and the stability layer is between the spacer fabric layer and the bottom layer and adhesive bonds the layers to one another.
Regarding claims 8-10, Schaefer is silent regarding the length of the polyester filaments. However, ‘330 teaches the length of the polyester filaments can vary in order to affect the velour affect and therefore teach the length as a results effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed length of the polyester filaments in order to affect the velour look and hand and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 13-15, Schaefer teaches the spacer fabric has a thickness of about in the claimed range including about 2mm (no more than 3mm is taught) [0024].
Regarding claim 22, Schafer teaches the top and bottom knit layers of the spacer fabric layers are connected with a monofilament cushion yarn (the yarn is considered to be a cushion yarn since it provides some level of cushion) to produce a three-dimensional stack of materials [Fig. 1, 0009]. Schafer is silent regarding the top and bottom layers being independently knitted. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the layers being independently knitted given the limited number of options. Further, even if the previous combination does not disclose the process of independently knitted, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that the previous combination meets the requirements of the claimed material, the previous composition clearly meet the requirements of present claims material.
Claims 6, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (DE 202011004902) in view of Helmeke et al. (PG Pub. 2012/0288720) in view of Schaeffer (DE 202004019330, hereinafter referred to as ‘330) in view of McLaughlin (US Pat. 4,716,065).
Regarding claim 6, the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed attachment material. However, McLauglin teaches a washable rug comprising an attachment material (velcro) attached to the bottom layer and configured to removably attach to a rug pad in order to remove the rug and get rid of dirt. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the washable rug of McLaughlin comprising an attachment material (velcro) attached to the bottom layer and configured to removably attach to a rug pad in the previous combination in order to remove the rug and get rid of dirt and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, Schaefer teaches a non-natural material having attributes of natural hide manufactured to provide aesthetics of natural hide with the material comprising a top/surface layer (4) comprising a surface fabric (top layer comprises a fabric as taught in 0016) and treated to be directionalized in a uniform non-upward direction from the surface fabric thereby aesthetically mimicking natural hide (grain leather), a liquid protection layer (can be construed as the polyurethane of the top layer, the adhesive between the top layer and the layer 3 or the polyamide film), a spacer fabric layer (cushioning layer 2) comprising top and bottom knit layers (layers 3 and 10) interspaced by cushioned yarn (layer 5) and the spacer fabric providing predefined cushioning for the material, a stability layer and bottom layer (which can be construed as layer 6) [0009, 0016, 0019, 0024, 0027 and 0047].
Schaeffer teaches the polyurethane adhesive, but is silent regarding the specifics of the adhesive, However, Helmeke et al. teach hot melt polyurethane adhesive comprising isocyanate prepolymer and methylene bisphenyl diisocynate (which is also referred to as MDI) in order to provide improved strength and mechanical properties [Title, Abstract, 0028 and 0030-0031]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polyurethane adhesive of Helmeke et al. in Schaefer in order to provide improved strength and mechanical properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
The previous combination is silent regarding the polyester filaments of the surface and the surface fabric being knitted. However, ‘330 teaches a plurality of polyester filaments affixed to the surface of the knitted fabric in order to obtain a visible side of which has a good appearance and a good feel, which is lightfast, colorfast, flame-retardant, dirt-repellent and easy to care for, and which, above all, does not change its appearance after stress and retains its velour-like surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the plurality of polyester filaments affixed to the knitted surface of the fabric as taught by ‘330 in the previous combination in order to obtain a visible side of which has a good appearance and a good feel, which is lightfast, colorfast, flame-retardant, dirt-repellent and easy to care for, and which, above all, does not change its appearance after stress and retains its velour-like surface and arrive at the claimed invention.
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed attachment layer and the material being a washable rug. However, McLauglin teaches a washable rug comprising an attachment material (velcro) attached to the bottom layer and configured to removably attach to a rug pad in order to remove the rug and get rid of dirt. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the washable rug of McLaughlin comprising an attachment material (velcro) attached to the bottom layer and configured to removably attach to a rug pad in the previous combination in order to remove the rug and get rid of dirt and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, Schaefer is silent regarding the length of the polyester filaments. However, ‘330 teaches the length of the polyester filaments can vary in order to affect the velour affect and therefore teach the length as a results effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed length of the polyester filaments in order to affect the velour look and hand and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, Schaefer teaches the spacer fabric has a thickness of about in the claimed range (no more than 3mm is taught) [0024].
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (DE 202011004902) in view of Helmeke et al. (PG Pub. 2012/0288720) in view of Schaeffer (DE 202004019330, hereinafter referred to as ‘330) in view of Civardi (US Pat. 3,988,488).
Regarding claims 11-12, the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed density of the polyester filaments. However, Civardi teaches a plurality of directionalized polyester filaments has a density in the claimed range in order to provide adequate strength [8:3-5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the density of the polyester filaments as taught by Civardi in the previous combination in order to provide adequate strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (DE 202011004902) in view of Helmeke et al. (PG Pub. 2012/0288720) in view of Schaeffer (DE 202004019330, hereinafter referred to as ‘330) in view of McLaughlin (US Pat. 4,716,065) in view of Civardi (US Pat. 3,988,488).
Regarding claim 19, the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed density of the polyester filaments. However, Civardi teaches a plurality of directionalized polyester filaments has a density in the claimed range in order to provide adequate strength [8:3-5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the density of the polyester filaments as taught by Civardi in the previous combination in order to provide adequate strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the cited art does not teach the new limitation of the specifics of the polyurethane. Newly cited art Helmeke et al. teach the specifics of the polyurethane adhesive. Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789