DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 29, 2025 has been entered.
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”.
With regards to the term “synthetic animal leather”, the Examiner acknowledges the resolution provided in the Reply filed on April 29, 2025. The Examiner also notes that discussion under the header of Claim Interpretation is not to state objections, but rather intended to explain the interpretations applied by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 112 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 112 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claim(s) 31, 33, 34, 38, 39, 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li CN106977994A (hereafter “Li”, machine translation provided and referenced).
Regarding claim 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).
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 claims 38, 39:
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 [meeting claim 39] (Example 1). The use of LED light sources and raised temperature has high production efficiency and excellent environmental performance (page 2 10th paragraph).
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 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 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 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, 52, 53, 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of 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 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 claims 52, 53:
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 [meeting claim 39] (Example 1). The use of LED light sources and raised temperature has high production efficiency and excellent environmental performance (page 2 10th paragraph).
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 Ordway and Erretre as applied to claims 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
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