DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment filed on March 27, 2026, claims 31 – 34, 36 – 37, 41, 47 – 51, and 54 –56 are pending. Claims 31, 33, 47, 49 have been amended and claims 1 – 30, 35, 38 – 40, 42 – 46, and 52 – 53 have been canceled. Claims 55 –56 have been added. Claims [BBB] have been withdrawn from consideration.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 Interpretation
Under the guidance set forth MPEP 2111.01 Heading I and Heading IV, Subheading A :during patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
However, when the Applicant clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess, the special definitions act as exceptions to giving the words in a claim their ordinary and customary meaning in the art. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366, 62 USPQ2d 1658, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Where an explicit definition is provided by the applicant for a term, that definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 1999)1.
Repeating from the previous Office Action, the Examiner takes note of the following special definitions generally provided on page 1 lines 7 – 27 of the present specification:
“hide”/ “leather”: any layer, whether it be grain, crust or sub-crust, of the leather of an animal.
“a leather”/ “the leather”: “at least one part of the leather of a single animal, which may therefore be of any shape.”
“size of the leather”: the surface area of a leather as defined.
“leather of animal origin”/ “animal leather”: genuine leather, leatherette2, faux leather or a similar composite product that contains an animal leather.
“synthetic leather”: “synthetic non-animal medium or medium of animal support whose external appearance is similar to animal leather or leather of animal origin”.
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.
Claims 55 and 56 are 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.
Regarding claim 55 and 56:
Newly presented claims 55 and 56 discloses a new required step of their respected methods of “providing a sensor connected to the at least one UV-ray generating device, the sensor activating or deactivating the at least one UV-ray generating device when a temperature in the working chamber falls below or respectively exceeds a predetermined temperature”. The originally filed disclosure does not expressly recite the added claim limitation. The Applicant also has not recited where the newly added claim limitation is supported in the originally filed disclosure.
While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure. See MPEP 2163.02 and In re Oda, 443 F.2d 1200, 170 USPQ 268 (CCPA 1971). If a claim is amended to include subject matter, limitations, or terminology not present in the application as filed, involving a departure from, addition to, or deletion from the disclosure of the application as filed, the examiner should conclude that the claimed subject matter is not described in that application. MPEP 2163.02.
The closest recitations of the originally filed disclosure to the subject matter encapsulated in claims 55 and 56 include page 8 lines 14 – 30. The closest recitation describes apparatus comprising IR lamps for heating a working area, and sensor means for detecting temperature operatively connected to the IR lamp.
However, as recited in the claim, UV-generated devices are connected to sensors for activation or deactivation based on temperature, which is of vastly different scope with what is expressly, implicitly and/or inherently disclosed in the originally-filed disclosre.
Thus, the new claim introduces New Matter. New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations that are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. See, e.g., In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly, there is no reasonable conveyance to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor or joint inventor has possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 103 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 31, 33, 34, 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as necessitated by amendment, as being unpatentable over Li CN106977994A (hereafter “Li”, machine translation provided and referenced) in view of Daiss et al. US 2008/0311309 A1 (hereinafter “Daiss”).
Regarding claims 31:
Li is directed to LED-cured aqueous leather coatings and its application in leather surface decoration and protection (Page 1 Background Technique). Li discloses an aqueous finishing composition comprising water-based acrylate oligomers and acrylate monomers [collectively photopolymerizable compound], a photoinitiator, and between 0.1 -5wt% of additives. (page 1 “Content of Invention”, pages 2 – 3, Example 1, 5).
Li discloses a method for coating leather for decoration and protection [finishing] (page 1 “Content of the invention”) comprising:
providing a genuine leather [animal leather] or synthetic leather for finishing (page 2 lines 9th paragraph, Example 1);
coating the leather using a roller coater or leaching coater with the aforementioned aqueous finishing composition as part of the provision of the leather (Examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5); and
irradiating the coated leather with ultraviolet (UV) radiation provided form e.g. a UV lamp.
While Li does not expressly teach that the coating is applied onto the leather by one of spraying, glazing or buffer; Li does disclose that spraying [non-point and scatter mannered deposing of the photopolymerizable composition] is a suitable method for coating alongside roller coating (page 2 9th paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the embodiments of the method of Li by specifically substituting the roller method for coating the leather with a spraying method because as taught by Li, the use of the spraying method is known to be suitable for the deposing of the aqueous composition onto leather substrates. 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).
Furthermore, Li discloses curing [irradiating] the leather substrates using LED light sources [plurality] operating at e.g. 405nm, 395nm, 390nm, ect [UV wavelengths] (page 2). Furthermore, Li discloses a step of raising the temperature of the composition to 45°C before application (Example 1). The use of LED light sources and raised temperature has high production efficiency and excellent environmental performance (page 2 10th paragraph)
Li does not expressly teach that the irradiation step is carried out in a working chamber and that a step of heating the working chamber to an operating temperature lower than 60°C occurs.
In analogous art, Daiss is directed to an apparatus and a method of producing molding materials and coatings on substrates by curing radiation-curable materials under an inert gas atmosphere by exposure to high-energy radiation (Abstract; [0001] – [0002]). The inert gas atmosphere is employed to provide protection to the coating as it is cured ([0004], [0007], [0031]). Such substrates include leather ([0179] and high-energy radiation includes ultraviolet radiation ([0005], [0091] – [0092]). Daiss discloses that their apparatus for curing radiation-curable materials include covers that enclose an interior (Fig. 1; [0039] – [0050]) in which a substrate is conveyed by a conveying means (Fig. 1 12, [0047], [0065], [0115]). Daiss discloses that coating material may be dried/heated during irradiation curing at a temperature of e.g. at least 50°C ([0135]); the heat for drying is provided by the high-energy radiation itself, or by a combination of the high-energy radiation with other heating means such as infrared heaters ([0136]). Daiss discloses that radiation coating materials may be affected at least partly by elevated temperatures; therefore an optimal temperature can exist for curing such coatings for reasons such as a reduced viscosity of coating material during curing ([0138]). Like Li, Daiss discloses that potential coating compositions that would benefit from their disclosed apparatus and method include urethane (meth)acrylates an isocyanates ([0150], [0152]); and that such groups may engage in a dual cure mechanism where thermal curing happens alongside radiation-induced curing. The compositions may have water and/or solvents, or preferably have minimal solvents and or water, including being fully water-free and solvent-free ([0154]).
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 Li by carrying out the irradiation step in a working chamber with an inert atmosphere with heating by at least the irradiation because Daiss teaches that curing such coatings in an inert atmosphere helps prevent substantial unintended side-reactions that may adversely affect the quality or curing rate of the desired coating ([0031]), and to optimize curing quality when combined with a desired level of thermal energy represented by elevated temperatures ([0138]).
With regards to the heating temperature being lower than 60°C, 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 33, 34:
While Li does not expressly teach the provision of a second deposition and second irradiation, the claims include result where such second steps would be to create a second coating of the same aqueous composition onto the substrate and in essence create a duplicate coating. Outside a showing of unexpected results, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where steps and their resultant products are merely duplicates. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 41:
Li discloses that the aqueous coatings may also contain pigments (page 2 4th paragraph).
Claim 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Daiss as applied to claims 31, 33, 34, 38, 39, 41 above, and further in view of Ordway et al. US 3908592 (hereafter “Ordway”) And Erretre EP2189544 A1 (hereafter “Erretre”).
Regarding claim 36:
Li in view of Daiss does not expressly teach a step of spraying wherein the step of spraying is carried out with at least one rotary turntable provided with at least 12 arms, each of the 12 arms including at least one spraying gun.
Ordway is directed to a method and apparatus for spraying flat surfaces such as hides [leather] with a finishing composition (Abstract; col 1 lines 10 – 35, col 1 lines 60 – 67). Ordway discloses that the general objective of their method and apparatus is to spray flat surfaced materials with a plurality of fluids while being conveyed to provide a finish thereon (col 1 lines 35 – 40). Using an apparatus as depicted in Fig. 1, Ordway discloses that their process includes a step of spraying a composition using a rotatable spray unit [rotary turntable] having eight arms equipped with a spray head per arm (col 2 lines 45 – 60, col 3 lines 5 – 40, col 4 lines 45 – 65, col 7 lines 10 – 25, col 8 lines 19 – 55). The method and apparatus allows the operator to have a wide range of control of the fluid, an objective attained by enabling the operator to use the fluids of the independent systems together or separately in both upstream and downstream directions with respect to the conveyor travel or in either one of such directions thereby enabling various methods to be practiced with one or two fluids of the same or different types and with different conveyor speeds that provide the desired finish.(col 1 lines 20 – 35, 58 – 68, col 8 lines 55 – 68).
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 Li by spraying finishing compositions onto leather substrates with an apparatus having a rotary turntable provided with arms equipped with spraying guns because Ordway teaches that such an apparatus and practice of the apparatus allows the operator to have a wide range of control of the fluid.
With regards to the number of arms being at least 12:
Erretre is directed to an improved equipment and spray booth for working flexible laminar surfaces such as tannery leathers (Abstract, [0001]). As depicted in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, Erretre discloses coating the tannery leathers using a rotary spray table ([0003] – [0008], [0016] – [0017]) like those of Ordway. Erretre discloses that spraying processes may be using rotating bodies that usually include a set of arms, and that eight arms or twelve arms are common ([0007]).
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 Li in view of Ordway to have sprayed photopolymerizable composition using an apparatus having 12 arms as a simple substitution to the apparatus having 8 arms used to execute the method of Li in view of Ordway; as taught by Erretre, the use of rotating spraying apparatus having 12 arms is known to be suitable for the purpose of deposing coatings onto leather substrates. 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).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Daiss as applied to claims 31, 33, 34, 38, 39, 41 above, and evidenced by or alternatively further in view of Wykamol Group Limited. “Thor Epoxy Acrylate Resin – Safety Data Sheet”. (May 29, 2015). Retrieved from https://wykamol.com/uploads/files/SDS/Thor-Epoxy-Acrylate-MSDS-2015-05.pdf (hereafter “SDS”).
Regarding claim 32:
Li discloses that the photopolymerizable composition may be applied up to a thickness of e.g. 10 micrometers, 60 micrometers, 35 micrometers, 25 micrometers, 15 micrometers (Examples). Li also discloses that the aqueous leather coating may be provided with an acyrlate oligomer at 10 to 80 wt%, reactive acrylate monomer at 10 to 50 wt%, photoinitiator 2 to 10wt%, photoinitator at 2 to 10 wt%, and additives at 0.1 to 5wt% (page 1). An amount of water may be added up to 50% by weight. The acrylate oligomer may be e.g. waterborne epoxy acrylate (page 1). As evidenced or taught by SDS, an epoxy acrylate may have a relative density of 1.46.
As the thickness in micrometers is related to the coating weight in grams/meter2 as being the product of the thickness of the film x the density of the coating, a 10 micrometer thickness of pure water, where water density can act as an estimate to the coating composition’s density, equates to 10 g/m2 coating weight. Such an estimate is reasonable in view of SDS’s teachings and considering the endpoint of the amount of acrylate oligomer may be 80% of the components of the composition minus water. In view of the wide range of component compositions, Li suggests an overlapping range. 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.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claims 31, 33, 34, 38, 39, 41 above, and further in view of Kashiwagura et al. US 20110078862 A1 (hereafter “Kashiwagura”) or Mattei US 3269858 A (hereafter “Mattei”).
Regarding claim 37:
Li does not expressly teach a step of drying the leather before the recited step of deposing.
However, the prior art of record is replete with teachings that leathers are dried before finishing operations, which itself comprises the recited step of deposing a photopolymerizable composition for finishing as taught Li for various reasons.
For example Kashiwagura, directed to a natural leather and a method of making such a natural leather (Abstract), discloses that their method of making a natural leather comprises a dying step ([0312] – [0315], [0531] – [0533]) and a greasing step ([0317] – [0323], [0531] – [0533]). The dying step and greasing step are performed before a post-treatment step that comprises a finishing process ([0323] – [0324]). Before finishing, the dyed and greased leather is dried in order to fix the greasing agent and dye onto the leather and thus impart desired properties such as color fastness, water resistance and flexibility ([0324], [0535]).
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 Li by including a step of drying the leather before the recited step of deposing because Kashiwagura teaches that such a drying step is the final step of a treatment(s) that are performed before finishing steps in order to impart desired properties onto a leather product, such as color, color fastness, water resistance and flexibility.
Alternatively Mattei, directed to methods of treating leather (col 1 lines 1 – 15), discloses that their method comprises: spraying or impregnating a leather with a composition; hanging the leather to dry; and then finishing the leather (col 11 lines 59 – 75, col 4 line 45 – col 5 line 5, col 7 lines 1 – 15 & lines 24 – 30). The composition that is sprayed/impregnated onto the leather provides enhanced resistance to scuffing and abrasion (col 7 lines 24 – 30).
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 Li by including a step of drying the leather before the recited step of deposing because Mattei teaches that such a drying step is the final step of a treatment(s) that are performed before finishing steps in order to impart desired properties onto a leather product, such as abrasion and scuff resistance.
Claim(s) 47, 49, 50, 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Daiss, Ordway and Erretre.
Regarding claims 47:
The disclosure and conclusions of obviousness of the relevant limitations of Li in the rejection of claims 31, 33, 34, 38, 39, 41 under 35 USC 103 over Li are also apply to the present rejection, mutatis mutandis.
Li does not expressly teach that the irradiation step is carried out in a working chamber and that a step of heating the working chamber to an operating temperature lower than 60°C occurs.
The disclosure and conclusions of obviousness of the relevant limitations in the rejection of claim 31 under 35 USC 103 over Li in view of Daiss also apply to the present rejection, mutatis mutandis.
Li does not expressly teach a step of spraying wherein the step of spraying is carried out with at least one rotary turntable.
The disclosure and conclusions of obviousness of the relevant limitations in the rejection of claim 36 under 35 USC 103 over Li in view of Ordway and Erretre also apply to the present rejection, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 49, 50:
While Li does not expressly teach the provision of a second deposition and second irradiation, the claims include result where such second steps would be to create a second coating of the same aqueous composition onto the substrate and in essence create a duplicate coating. Outside a showing of unexpected results, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where steps and their resultant products are merely duplicates. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 54:
Li discloses that the aqueous coatings may also contain pigments (page 2 4th paragraph).
Claim(s) 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Daiss, Ordway and Erretre as applied to claims 47, 49, 50, 54 above, and evidenced by or alternatively further in view of SDS.
Regarding 48:
The disclosure and conclusions of obviousness of the relevant limitations of Li as evidenced by or in view of SDS in the rejection of claim 32 under 35 USC 103 over Li as evidenced by or in view of SDS also apply to the present rejection, mutatis mutandis.
Claim(s) 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Ordway and Erretre as applied to claims 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54 above, and further in view of Kashiwagura or Mattei.
Regarding claim 51:
Li does not expressly teach a step of drying the leather before the recited step of deposing.
The disclosure and conclusions of obviousness of the relevant limitations of in the rejection of claim 37 under 35 USC 103 over Li in view of Kashiwagura or Mattei are also apply to the present rejection, mutatis mutandis.
Claim(s) 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Daiss as applied to claims 31, 33, 34, 41 above, and further in view of Plummer et al. US 8689732 B1 (hereinafter “Plummer”).
Regarding claim 55:
Li in view of Daiss does not expressly teach a further step of providing a sensor connected to the at least one UV-ray generating device, the sensor activating or deactivating the at least one UV-ray generating device when a temperature in the working chamber falls below or respectively exceeds a predetermined temperature.
In analogous art, Plummer is directed to a system for creating a wood like appearance on a synthetic component (Abstract). Plummer discloses that the system has a plurality of temperature control environments to simultaneously control heating of the synthetic component while spraying, drying and UV curing with spray treatment device (Abstract; col 6 lines 15 –51). The temperature control environments includes oven and infrared lamps; and can additionally include temperature sensors connected to a production processor for controlling temperature on components after a base coat is applied to a component (col 6 lines 15 – 51). The components include ultraviolet as well as infrared lamps.
Daiss discloses that coating material may be dried/heated during irradiation curing at a temperature of e.g. at least 50°C ([0135]); the heat for drying is provided by the high-energy radiation itself, or by a combination of the high-energy radiation with other heating means such as infrared heaters ([0136]).
Therefore, in view of the prior art as a whole, 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 Li in view of Daiss to further comprise a step of providing a sensor connected to the at least one UV-ray generating device, the sensor activating or deactivating the at least one UV-ray generating device when a temperature in the working chamber falls below or respectively exceeds a predetermined temperature because Daiss teaches a desire for controlled temperature for determining film quality and Plummer teaches the same desire with a reasonable expectation that UV lamps may be controlled by a processor connected to sensors for such a purpose. One of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately understood such control would include at least partial energizing [turning on] or partial de-energizing [turning off] of such a lamp.
Claim(s) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Daiss, Ordway and Erretre as applied to claims 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54 above, and further in view of Kashiwagura or Mattei.
Regarding claim 56:
Li in view of Daiss, Ordway and Erretre does not expressly teach a further step of providing a sensor connected to the at least one UV-ray generating device, the sensor activating or deactivating the at least one UV-ray generating device when a temperature in the working chamber falls below or respectively exceeds a predetermined temperature.
The disclosure and conclusions of obviousness of the relevant limitations of in the rejection of claim 55 under 35 USC 103 over Li in view of Kashiwagura or Mattei are also apply to the present rejection, mutatis mutandis.
In view of the prior art as a whole, 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 Li in view of Daiss to further comprise a step of providing a sensor connected to the at least one UV-ray generating device, the sensor activating or deactivating the at least one UV-ray generating device when a temperature in the working chamber falls below or respectively exceeds a predetermined temperature because Daiss teaches a desire for controlled temperature for determining film quality and Plummer teaches the same desire with a reasonable expectation that UV lamps may be controlled by a processor connected to sensors for such a purpose. One of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately understood such control would include at least partial energizing [turning on] or partial de-energizing [turning off] of such a lamp.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed March 27, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Daiss and Plummer.
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 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 See MPEP 2111.01 Heading IV, Subheading A.
2 an imitation leather made from paper, cloth, etc. Collins Dictionaries (Ed.). (2014). Leatherette. In Collins English Dictionary (12th ed.). Collins. https://search.credoreference.com/articles/Qm9va0FydGljbGU6MzYwNDk1Mw==?aid=279753
Prosecution Insights