DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on June 4, 2025 have been entered into the file. Currently claim 1 is amended, claims 5 and 7 are cancelled, and claims 8-16 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 1-4 and 6 pending for examination.
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 1-4 and 6 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “stacking weight” in lines 6 and 10. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what constitutes a stacking weight. For example it is unclear whether the stacking weight refers to the weight of the layer individually, the weight of the stack of layers, or the weight of different combinations of layers within the stack. For the purposes of examination “stacking weight” will be interpreted as the basis weight of the individual layer referenced, pending further clarification from Applicant.
Claims 2-4 and 6 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on its dependency from claim 1, rejected above.
Claims 4 and 6 depend from claim 1 and limit the weight of the adhering layer and the surface layer to be 50-400 gsm. As discussed above it is unclear whether the claimed “stacking weight” of claim 1 is the basis weight of the individual layers. Therefore it is unclear whether the limitations of claim 4 and 6 broaden the weight recitations of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamae (US 4426421)1 in view of Nakano (US 2015/0259484)1, Hironaka (US 2021/0180247)1, and Kim (US 2018/0148891)1.
With respect to claims 1 and 3-6, Nakamae teaches a multilayer composite sheet comprising at least three fibrous layers useful as a substrate for an artificial leather (col. 1, lines 6-16). The three fibrous layers are a superficial layer (A) (surface layer) consisting of spun-laid extremely fine fibers, an intermediate layer (B) (adhering layer) consisting of synthetic staple fibers, and a base layer (C) (substrate) consisting of a woven or knitted fabric (col. 2, lines 3-15). The intermediate layer (B) (adhering layer) is extremely effective for firmly bonding the superficial layer (A) (surface layer) with the base layer (C) (substrate) (adhering layer is disposed on the substrate and surface layer is disposed on the adhering layer) (col. 2, lines 43-46).
The spun-laid web (surface layer) is preferably produced by the melt-blow method (col. 4, lines 27-30), has an apparent density of from 0.01 to 0.5 g/cm3 and a weight of from 5-500 gsm, preferably 20-200 gsm (col. 4, lines 34-41), and is preferably polyethylene terephthalate (polyester) (col. 4, lines 52-54). The staple fibers of the staple fiber web (adhering layer) are preferably a polyester such as polyethylene terephthalate (col. 5, lines 1-4) and has an apparent density of 0.01-0.5 g/cm3, preferably 0.05-0.3 g/cm3 and a weight of from 5-500 gsm, preferably 20-200 gsm (col. 5, lines 5-8).
The layer density ranges, staple fiber web (adhering layer) basis weight range, and spun-laid web (surface layer) basis weight range of Nakamae substantially overlap the claimed ranges in the instant claims 1, 4, and 6. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Nakamae, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Nakamae is silent as to the superficial layer (A) (surface layer) comprising 15-25 wt% recycled thermoplastic polyester and 75-85% thermoplastic polyester material.
Nakano teaches a polyester film containing a polyester resin obtained by recycling PET bottles (paragraph [0001]). A low content of the polyester resin obtained by recycling PET bottles in the total resin film has a lower environmental preservation impact, however, too much of the recycled PET in the resin film inhibits the addition of lubricants or additives for forming the film (paragraph [0028]).
Since both Nakamae and Nakano teach polyester resin layers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the PET superficial layer (A) (surface layer) of Nakamae to include recycled PET in order to have a positive environmental impact. It further would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of recycled PET in the PET superficial layer (A) (surface layer) to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to provide a PET superficial layer (A) (surface layer) that has a positive environmental impact while still being able to be formed into a film with additives as desired. It has been held that, where 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Nakamae in view of Nakano is silent as to the intermediate layer (B) (adhering layer) being melt-blown.
Hironaka teaches artificial leather which is excellent in texture and mechanical strength (paragraph [0001]). The artificial leather comprises fibrous layers (paragraphs [0017]-[0020]). Examples of the method suitable for producing each fiber layer includes spinning direct coupling methods (e.g., spunbond and meltblowing), and a method of forming a fiber sheet using cut fibers (e.g., dry methods such as carding or the airlaid method, and wet methods such as papermaking method) (paragraph [0086]). Hironaka further discloses cutting fibers to a select length (paragraphs [0086]-[0087]), [0147]).
Since both Nakamae in view of Nakano and Hironaka teach artificial leather comprising layered fabric, 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 method of forming the intermediate layer (B) (adhering layer) to be one of the methods disclosed by Hironaka, such as melt-blowing, because it is known in the art as a suitable method for making a nonwoven layer of an artificial leather. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). In the instant case, Hironaka discloses that both the papermaking method utilized to form the stable fiber web (B) (adhesive layer) of Nakamae (e.g., Nakamae; col. 11, lines 13-21) and the claimed meltblown method are suitable for forming fibrous layers within a layered artificial leather as discussed above. Hironaka further discusses cutting fibers to a specific length, such as 5 mm (Hironaka; paragraph [0147]), which are of similar length to the fibers of the staple fiber web (B) (adhesive layer) of Nakamae (e.g., Nakamae; col. 11, lines 13-21). Therefore the substitution provides the predictable results of an artificial leather with a staple fiber web (B) (adhesive layer) with the staple fiber lengths disclosed by Nakamae.
Nakamae in view of Nakano is further silent as to the intermediate layer (B) (adhering layer) and the PET superficial layer (A) (surface layer) having a fiber fineness of 3-50 micrometers.
Hironaka further teaches a fiber having an average diameter of 1-8 microns (paragraph [0071]). When the average diameter is greater than 1 micron, abrasion resistance, color developability by dyeing, and light fastness become suitable (paragraph [0071]). When the average diameter is less than 8 microns, an artificial leather having high denseness, smooth surface texture, and superior surface quality can be obtained (paragraph [0071]).
The fiber fineness range of Hironaka substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Hironaka, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Since both Nakamae in view of Nakano and Hironaka teach artificial leather comprising layered fabric, 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 fibers of the layers of Nakamae in view of Nakano to have a fineness of 1-8 microns in order to provide layers with a combination of abrasion resistance, dyeability, and surface quality.
Nakamae in view of Nakano and Hironaka is silent as to the melting points of the superficial layer (A) (surface layer) and the staple fiber web (B) (adhesive layer).
Kim teaches an artificial leather using polyester comprising a base material layer formed with polyester fabric, and adhesive layer stack on one surface of the base material layer and formed with a polyester copolymer, and a skin film layer stacked on one surface of the adhesive layer formed with a polyetherester BLOCK copolymer (paragraphs [0008]-[0011]). The adhesive layer may be used with a polyester lower in melting point than that of the skin layer (paragraph [0041]). The adhesive may be a polyester polymer with a melting point of 100-170oC (paragraph [0042]). The skin layer may have a melting point of 130-220oC, preferably 150-190oC (paragraph [0044]). After the layers are stacked they may be bonded by applying heat and pressure which may be changed depending on the melting point of the adhesive layer (paragraph [0061]).
The melting point ranges of Kim substantially overlap the claimed ranges in the instant claim 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kim, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Since both Nakamae in view of Nakano and Hironaka and Kim teach multilayer polyester artificial leathers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the superficial layer (A) (surface layer) of Nakamae to have a melting point of 150-190oC and the staple fiber web (B) (adhesive layer) to have a melting point of 100-170oC in order to allow the staple fiber web (B) (adhesive layer) to bond the remaining layers by applying heat and pressure.
With respect to claim 2, Nakamae in view of Nakano, Hironaka, and Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Nakamae further teaches that it is preferable that the base layer (C) (substrate) exhibits the same dyeing properties as that of the superficial layer (A) (surface layer) (col. 5, lines 43-46). The superficial layer (A) (surface layer) is preferably made of polyethylene terephthalate (col. 4, lines 46-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used PET as the material for the base layer (C) (substrate) in order to ensure the layer has the same dyeing properties as the superficial layer (A) (surface layer).
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
The rejections of claims 1-4 and 6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, are overcome by Applicants amendments to the claims in the response filed June 4, 2025.
In light of the amendments to the claims, a new rejection of claims 1-4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been applied above.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments submitted on June 4, 2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 10 of the response Applicant submits that none of Nakamae, Nakano, Hironaka, nor Kim disclose the amendments.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As presented in the rejection of claim 1 above, Nakamae and Hironaka teach the newly added amendments. Nakamae teaches the spun-laid web (surface layer) has a weight of from 5-500 gsm, preferably 20-200 gsm (col. 4, lines 34-41) and the staple fiber web (adhering layer) has a weight of from 5-500 gsm, preferably 20-200 gsm (col. 5, lines 5-8).
Hironaka further teaches a fiber having an average diameter of 1-8 microns (paragraph [0071]). When the average diameter is greater than 1 micron, abrasion resistance, color developability by dyeing, and light fastness become suitable (paragraph [0071]). When the average diameter is less than 8 microns, an artificial leather having high denseness, smooth surface texture, and superior surface quality can be obtained (paragraph [0071]).
As such, Nakamae and Hironaka teaches the newly added claim amendments.
On page 10 of the response Applicant submits that the specificity of the ranges provided, in conjunction with the materials and composition, is not as trivial as the Office asserts. Applicants has designed, fabricated, and disclosed a very precise combination of features for a specific artificial leather that is not disclosed by the prior art of record nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. As explained in the rejections above, the prior art suggests the artificial leather of claims 1-4 and 6.
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 Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Previously presented