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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/1/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2020/0231805 to Teglia in view of USPAP 2023/0304218 to Kang, USPN 3,903,312 to Clinton, and/or USPAP 2003/0232555 to Nobuto.
Claim 1, Teglia discloses a method of preparing vegan leather sheet, comprising: mixing recycled fibers and latex and a second mixing step of adding a fatliquor for imparting flexibility to the mixture and drying the results of the mixture and passing them through pressing rollers for compressing and molding into recycled leather sheet (see entire document including [0002], [0104]-[0108], [0120], [0124]-[0127], [0163], [0174] and [0193]). Teglia does not appear to specifically mention use of a mixing tank but the examiner takes official notice (now admitted prior art) that mixing is conventionally performed in a mixing tank. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to perform the mixing in any suitable device, such as the claimed mixing tank, to ensure mixing of the components.
Teglia does not appear to mention including coffee grounds in the mixing step but Kang discloses that it is known in the art to include coffee grounds in an artificial leather sheet, to improve biodegradability and deodorizing effect, including a coffee grounds powder manufacturing step of drying coffee grounds for more than 24 hours to remove moisture and grinding to produce a coffee grounds powder in a micronized form (see entire document including [0002], [0035], [0036], [0045] and [0057]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include coffee grounds, as claimed and as taught by Kang, to provide the leather sheet of Teglia with improved biodegradability and deodorizing effect.
Kang discloses that the coffee is dried [0057] but does not appear to mention freeze-drying the coffee grounds powder. Clinton discloses that it is known to dry coffee grounds by freeze-drying below minus 10ºC and for more than 3 hours to form a stable product (see entire document including column 1, lines 14-52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to dry the coffee grounds by any suitable method, such as the claimed freeze-drying, to form a stable product and/or because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known method on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Teglia does not appear to mention including a dispersant but Nobuto discloses that it is known in the art to include a dispersant to improve component dispersion (see entire document including [0104]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a dispersant to improve dispersion of the mixture.
Claim 2, Teglia discloses a needle punching step in which fibers are bonded to the surface of the coffee recycled leather through the coffee recycled leather molding step, and then needle punched to reinforce the physical strength [0126].
Claim 4, Kang discloses that the coffee grounds powder has a particle size of 1,000 µm or less [0045].
Claim 5, Teglia discloses that the latex may be natural or synthetic [0108] and Nobuto discloses that it is known in the art to use a SBR latex [0053]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the latex from any suitable natural or synthetic latex material, such as the claimed SBR-based synthetic latex, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 6, Teglia discloses that the fibers may be yarn fibers, natural yarn fibers, or recycled fibers ([0097], [0124] and [0127]).
Claim 7, Teglia discloses that the general yarn fiber may be polyurethane (PU)-based, Polyethylene (PE)-based, or Cationic Dyeable Polyester (CDP)-based general yarn ([0124] and [0125]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/2025 have been considered but are partially moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
The applicant asserts that Nobuto fails to teach or suggest a fatliquor and a dispersant. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Teglia (the primary reference) already teaches the presence of a fatliquor [0120]. Therefore, Nobuto is cited merely to teach the claimed dispersant. Plus, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.). MPEP 2144.04.
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 ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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 at 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789