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 .
The amendment filed 11/27/2025 has been entered. Claims 11 and 14-15 have been canceled. Claims 1-10, 12-13, and 16-18 are pending in the application. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
Consistent with MPEP § 2111, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation wherein “the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” However, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 f.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993.) It is also noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is further noted that product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “Even 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 art product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed. Cir. 1985.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (US2021/0245400A1) for generally the reasons recited in the prior office action and restated below.
As discussed previously, Moore teaches an architectural panel (100) (in the form of a “sheet structure”) that incorporates plastic granules (120) fused together to form a panel core (110) wherein the granules (120) used to form the panel core (110) may be sourced from waste plastic material and at least a portion of the plastic granules (120) are contaminated granules that at least partially include a contaminant material (140) such as a piece of fabric, plastic film or plant material (Entire document, particularly Abstract, Figs. 1A-B, Paragraphs 0025-0028). Moore teaches that the panel may be formed by first preprocessing and/or presorting the waste plastic material (210), granulating the waste plastic (220), sorting the initial set of plastic granules (240) into accept and reject granules (330,340), and fusing the accept granules together to form the panel core (270), wherein preferably about 1 to about 12% of the plastic granules (120) are contaminant granules and the remaining are contaminant-free granules (Entire document, particularly Abstract; Figs. 2-3; Paragraphs 0009-0012 and 0034). Moore teaches that the fusing of the granules may be conducted by a heated compression molding process to fuse the granules to one another under heat and pressure, determined based upon the material type of the plastic granules, desired sheet/panel size, and other particular application needs (Paragraph 0049), wherein the borders between the plastic granules may be visible in the finished panel providing a more diffuse, textured, and aesthetically pleasing look to the panel (Paragraph 0029). Moore teaches that the plastic granules may include any plastic material that can be suitably used in a resin panel manufacturing process such as compression molding, with examples thereof including “polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene terephthalate with glycol-modification (PETG), acrylonitrile butadiene-styrene (ABS), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyvinyl butyral (PVB), ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), polycarbonate (PC), styrene, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyolefin (e.g., UHMW or HDPE or LDPE or PP), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), a cellulose-based polymer, polylactic acid (PLA), or polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), or combinations thereof” (emphasis added), and that preferably the plastic granules are primarily formed from the same material so that effective fusing/bonding of the granules can occur during formation of the panel, e.g. heated compression molding under a temperature and pressure sufficient to melt and fuse the granules, with preference given to PETG which is particularly associated with the formation of visible granule borders in the finished panels (Paragraphs 0027-0029 and 0048-0049, reading upon instant claims 2-3). Moore also teaches that the plastic granules are preferably substantially transparent with some of the granules, however, being contaminant granules comprising contaminant material that may be intentionally added in a controlled amount to provide beneficially aesthetic properties, such as a desirable “flecked” aesthetic property, visible in the final architectural panel (100); wherein the contaminant materials may include anything that is not formed from the same material as the plastic granules, anything that has a different color than the plastic granules, and/or anything that has a different opacity than the plastic granules, for example, an illustrated panel includes several pieces of colored, opaque plastic film dispersed in the light transmissive or substantially clear/transparent panel, with preference given to contaminants that are white though one or more other colors may be included as well (Paragraphs 0029-0033, 0036 and 0040; reading upon the claimed plurality of first recycled granule portions and plurality of second recycled granule portions as in instant claim 1; or plurality of first recycled granule portions and second recycled body portion as in instant claim 17 given that the contaminant granules include a material different from a material of the first recycled granules and upon fusion covers at least one portion of the surface layer of the first recycled granule portions; or plurality of recycled granule portions and adhesive body portion as in instant claim 18 given that an outer surface of the granules that fuses or bonds the granules together functions as “an adhesive body portion” that covers at least one portion of the surface layer of each of the recycled granule portions).
Moore further teaches that the panel (100) may be configured to have optical properties that maximize the aesthetic properties of the panel (100) such as having an optical transmission to visible light of about 50% to 85% (Paragraphs 0035-0036), and may include one or more outer (continuous) skin layers (130a,130b) fused to the panel core (110) comprising the plurality of fused plastic granules, wherein the one or more skin layers may be formed from a different material than the plastic granules (120), but preferably of the same plastic material, and wherein further color features may be provided by a colored film applied to the outer surface of the panel or attached to or integrated into a skin layer, and that color features may additionally or alternatively be provided by dyes or direct coloration of the plastic material that forms skin layers and/or the granules of the panel core (Paragraphs 0010, 0026 and 0050); reading upon the claimed and/or rendering obvious the claimed “first panel portion disposed on the upper surface, a material of the first panel portion being a transparent material or a translucent material, so that the plurality of first recycled granule portions and the plurality of second recycled granule portions are visible through the first panel portion” and “a second panel portion disposed on the lower surface;” wherein at least one of a material of the plurality of first recycled granule portions of claims 1 and 17 or the plurality of recycled granular portions of claim 18, and a material of the plurality of second recycled granule portions (claim 1) or of the second recycled body portion (claim 17) or of the adhesive body portion (claim 18) is a transparent material or a translucent material, so that the second panel portion is visible through the plurality of first recycled granular portions or second recycled portions (claim 1), or through the plurality of first recycled granule portions or the second recycled body portion (claim 17), or through the plurality of recycled granule portions or the adhesive body portion (claim 18), given the above optical transmission properties and that the “flecked” appearance is visible in the final panel as discussed above, and that Moore specifically teaches that the plastic granules are preferably substantially transparent and that color features may be provided by dyes or direct coloration of the plastic material that forms skin layers (reading upon the first and second panel portions) and/or the granules of the panel core.
Hence, Moore clearly teaches a “sheet structure” comprising a plurality of (first) recycled granules and second recycled granule portions, or second recycled body portion, or adhesive body portion as in instant claims 1, 17, or 18, respectively, with at least one material thereof being transparent or translucent; a first panel portion (e.g., one or more skin layers or skin 130b) disposed on an upper surface thereof with a material of the first panel portion being a transparent material or a translucent material to allow the granule portions and body portions to be visible through the first panel portion; and a second panel portion disposed on the lower surface (e.g., one or more skin layers or skin 130a) as in instant claims 1, 17, and 18, that is visible through the plurality of recycled granule portions or recycled body portion or adhesive portion as discussed in detail above, and given again that Moore specifically teaches that the outer skin(s) may be formed from the same material as the granules such as thermoplastic polyurethane (or polyvinyl chloride), e.g., an obvious “artificial leather” material, and that the claimed invention does not specifically define the claimed “an artificial leather” in a manner to clearly differentiate the claimed “artificial leather” from a colored thermoplastic polyurethane (or polyvinyl chloride) skin layer as taught by Moore, the Examiner maintains her position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1, 17, and 18, would have been obvious over the teachings of Moore given that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to select from any of the suitable polymer materials taught by Moore and provide any desired coloring and/or aesthetic appearance based upon the intended end use of the panel as taught by Moore.
With respect to instant claims 2-3, it is first noted that the claimed “formed by the…recyclable material through a process parameter” (emphasis added) as in instant claim 2 and “wherein the process parameter is a highest temperature within a process apparatus, a maximum air pressure difference between interior and exterior of the process apparatus, and operating duration of the process parameter, or a combination thereof” are process limitations in the product claim that do not provide any additional structural or material limitations to differentiate the claimed sheet structure from the panel taught by Moore, and given that Moore teaches that heat and pressure are applied to the layup assembly (550) to melt and fuse the accepted granules (330) to form the panel core (110), and to fuse the panel core (110) to the skin layers (130a,130b), e.g. “a highest temperature within a process apparatus”, “a maximum air pressure difference between interior and exterior of the process apparatus”, and/or “an operating duration of the process apparatus” as in instant claim 3, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 2-3 would have been obvious over the teachings of Moore.
With respect to instant claim 4, given that the plurality of third recycled granule portions is not required to be different from the first and/or second recycled granule portion(s), such that any percentage of the first and/or second recycled granule portions may be viewed as the “third” recycled granule portions, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 4 would have been obvious over the teachings of Moore, particularly given that Moore teaches that the contaminant granules may include a plurality of colors (Paragraphs 0032-0033).
With respect to instant claim 5, Moore teaches that the skin layers (130a,130b) may be formed from a different material than the plastic granules (120) (Paragraph 0026), and hence, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 5 would have been obvious over the teachings of Moore.
With respect to instant claim 6, given that the claims do not require the first and second recyclable materials to be different recyclable materials nor recite that the first and second melting temperatures, glass transition temperatures, and Vicat softening temperatures are different from each other, respectively, the plastic granules taught by Moore such as of thermoplastic polyurethane read upon the broadly claimed first and second recyclable materials that have first and second melting temperatures, glass transition temperatures, and Vicat softening temperatures given that thermoplastic materials in general are known to have a melting temperature, Vicat softening temperature, and glass transition temperature. Hence, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 6 would have been obvious over the teachings of Moore.
With respect to instant claim 7, Moore teaches that the plastic granules (120) have an average granule size of about 1/8 inch to about 1/2 inch, or about 3/16 inch to about 7/16 inch, or about 1/4 inch to about 3/8 inch, and given that the plastic granules (120) include the contaminant-containing granules and the contaminant-free granules such that the average granule sizes thereof are the same or “identical” as instantly claimed, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 7 would have been obvious over the teachings of Moore.
With respect to instant claim 8, although Moore teaches that architectural resin panels may be about 50% the weight of a glass at a comparable thickness and may be designed to have a desired sheet size for a particular application (Paragraphs 0003 and 0044), Moore does not specifically teach a thickness of the panel as instantly claimed. However, given that Moore does not limit the thickness to any particular range, and recites that the granules may have an average size of about 1/8 inch prior to heating and pressing to form the architectural panel, wherein in general, architectural panels can be utilized for various applications such as for decorative products, partitions, and surfaces for furniture (Paragraphs 0003, 0038, 0044, and 0049), the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, a thickness on the same order of magnitude as an average size of the granules taught by Moore and/or as determined by one having ordinary skill in the art based upon the intended end use of the panel taught by Moore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, thereby rendering the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 8 obvious over the teachings of Moore, particularly given that decorative surfacing laminates of furniture or architecture articles are known to have thicknesses similar to and/or on the same order of magnitude as claimed.
With respect to instant claim 10, given that any plastic object is either colored or colorless, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 10 would have been obvious over the teachings Moore, particularly given that Moore clearly teaches that the one or more outer skin layers may be colored (Paragraph 0050).
With respect to instant claim 12, given again that Moore does not limit the thickness of the architectural panel, the Examiner again takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed thickness would have been obvious over the teachings of Moore.
With respect to instant claim 13, as discussed above, Moore specifically teaches that the architectural resin panel may also include different color features, wherein color features may be provided by a colored film coating applied to the outer surface of the panel or attached to or integrated into a skin layer, for example, and that color features may additionally or alternatively be provided by dyes or direct coloration of the plastic material that forms skins layers and/or the granules of the panel core such that any color features integrated into the lower skin (130a) would read upon and/or render obvious the claimed “comprises a pattern layer facing the lower surface” given that one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine the desired “pattern” to provide the desired aesthetic properties for a particular end use, especially given that it is well established that making aesthetic design changes is prima facie obviousness (see for example, MPEP § 2144.04, Subsection I, or In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947)).
With respect to instant claim 16, the Examiner takes the position that the claimed “is configured to manufacture a shoe upper or a vamp” constitutes intended end use of the sheet structure and does not provide any additional material or structural limitations to the claimed sheet structure to differentiate the claimed invention from the panel or sheet taught by Moore, and given that the panel or sheet taught by Moore is capable of the same intended end use, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 16 would have been obvious over the teachings of Moore.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore as applied above to claim 1 (and incorporated herein by reference) and in further view of or as evidenced by Sasase (WO2019083046A1, please refer to the attached machine translation for the below cited sections) or Yun (KR101245558B1, please refer to the attached machine translation for the below cited sections) or Min (KR101081645B1, please refer to the attached machine translation for the below cited sections) or Ito (JP2008196057A, please refer to the attached machine translation for the below cited sections). As discussed in detail above, Moore teaches an architectural panel that incorporates plastic granules (120) fused together to form a panel core (110) that may be provided with one or more skin layers (130a,130b), wherein the granules (120) used to form the panel core (110) may be sourced from waste plastic material and at least a portion of the plastic granules (120) are contaminated granules that at least partially include a contaminant material (140) such as a piece of fabric; and wherein the optical transmission to visible light or transparency as well as the coloring of the granules and skin layers may be selected to provide desired aesthetic properties for a particular end use of the architectural panel, and although Moore teaches that the borders between plastic granules (120) may be visible in the finished panel to provide “a more diffuse, textured, and aesthetically pleasing look to the panel (100)” (Paragraph 0029), Moore does not teach that an upper skin layer, e.g., 130b in Fig. 5B, as the claimed first panel portion has a textured surface or more particularly a “concave-convex texture” in combination with a material of a lower skin layer, e.g., 130a in Fig. 5B, as the claimed second panel portion, being a mesh fabric, a woven fabric, a non-woven fabric, a heat-resistant cloth, an animal leather, or an artificial leather as instantly claimed.
However, it is first noted that Moore does not limit the surface finish of the architectural panel to any particular surface texture such that any surface texture known in the art would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It is also noted that in addition to the discussion above with respect to instant claim 1 from which instant claim 9 depends, Moore clearly teaches that architectural panels in general “often include decorative and/or structural materials embedded within or coated on the panel, such as fabrics, plant materials, metal, rocks, plastic films, plastic coatings, and the like” (emphasis added; Paragraph 0006), and given that Moore teaches that the contaminant granules may include a contaminant material such as fabric that may be incorporated from scrap or waste material such as trim waste from manufactured architectural resin panels (Entire document, particularly Abstract, Paragraphs 0005-0006, 0010-0013, 0029-0031), and that, as noted above, the one or more skin layers (130a,130b) may be formed from a different material than the plastic granules but preferably formed from the same plastic material such as PVC and TPU, obvious species of “artificial leather” as noted above, Moore provides a clear teaching and/or suggestion of utilizing a material as recited in instant claim 9 for the skin layer 130a as the second panel portion. It is further noted that it is well established in the art that synthetic architectural panels including for walls or partitions in offices and homes (as in Moore) as well as for surfaces of furniture (as in Moore), such as headboards and chairs, and/or for automotive interior panels can be provided with a textured surface to mimic a grain leather appearance and/or feel by utilizing a grain surface texture or “concave-convex texture” as in the instantly claimed invention as evidenced by Sasase (Entire document, particularly Abstract, Paragraphs 0002-0004, 0073, and Examples) or Yun (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0001, 0003-0004; Page 9, last full paragraph; Paragraph 0036) or Min (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0001-0006, Pages 9-10; Page 11, third full paragraph; Paragraphs 0038-0039, and 0059) or Ito (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0001-0003, 0084-0087, 0089, and Examples), wherein each of Sasase, Yun, Min, and Ito also teaches the combination of such surface texture with a fabric layer (of natural and/or synthetic fibers) in producing an artificial leather panel or laminate for similar end uses as in Moore (Sasase: Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0002, 0004, 0007, 0011, 0019-0022, and 0025; Yun: Paragraphs 0002, 0028, 0041; Min: Paragraph 0038; Ito: Paragraph 0086). Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the Examiner takes the position that the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 9 would have been obvious over the teachings of Moore in further view of or as evidenced by Sasase or Yun or Min or Ito, given that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to utilize a grain like or concave-convex texture to mimic grain leather, an obvious surface texture in the art as evidenced by Sasase or Yun or Min or Ito, and/or provide the desired feel or aesthetics for a particular end use of the architectural panel taught by Moore.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the obviousness rejection over Moore taken alone as restated above, and are moot with respect to the teachings of Moore in further view of or as evidenced by Sasase or Yun or Min or Ito with respect to amended claim 9. Specifically, the Applicant first argues that the skin layer of Moore is allegedly “explicitly taught as being made of plastic material, preferably the same plastic material as the granules (see paragraph [0026] of Moore), and Moore’s skin layer functions merely as a plastic protecting layer or an aesthetic layer”, arguing that Moore allegedly “only discloses a fully plastic panel” (see page 10 of the response). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and first notes that the claims do not require the panel to include a material other than a plastic material given that at least the claimed fabric layers as well as the “artificial leather” may be formed only from plastics, and the claims nor the specification clearly define “artificial leather” as including any non-plastic material or being substantially different from the colored TPU or PVC skin layers as clearly taught and/or suggested by Moore. In addition, Moore does not limit the skin layers to non-fabric plastic materials and actually teaches that the skin layers “may be formed from a different material than the plastic granules” (Paragraph 0026) and also clearly teaches that architectural panels in general may include fabrics (Paragraph 0006), wherein the contaminant granules, that may be formed from trim scrap of manufactured architectural panels or waste product when the architectural panels reach the end of their useful life, may include fabric such that Moore provides a clear teaching and/or suggestion that the produced architectural resin panels may include a “fabric” layer. Hence, Applicant’s arguments that “Moore only discloses a fully plastic panel, and [thus] Moore fails to disclose the aforementioned features as recited in the amended claims 1, 17 and 18 of the present application” as recited on pages 9-10 are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments over Moore in view of Skaja, the previous obviousness rejection based on the combination of Moore in view of Skaja has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s claim amendments deleting the crack and elongation properties limitations, and hence, Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-12 with respect to Moore in view of Skaja are moot. However, the Examiner would like to note that with respect to Applicant’s arguments that the claimed invention allegedly achieves “an unexpected technical effect of providing a unique aesthetic where the texture of the second panel portion is visibly distinctive through the transparent/translucent layer, while simultaneously providing skin-friendly breathability and stitchability, which is critical for the invention’s intended use in footwear and [allegedly] is not achievable by the fully plastic panel of Moore” (emphasis added) and that “Moore is [allegedly] non-analogous art to the present invention” as argued on pages 10-12, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Moore is not limited to a fully plastic, non-fabric or non-artificial-leather panels only as argued by the Applicant and actually clearly teaches and/or suggests that the panel may comprises fabric as discussed in detail above. It is also noted that the claimed invention does not require “the texture of the second panel portion” to be “visibly distinctive through the transparent/translucent layer” as argued by the Applicant, only that the second panel portion is visible through the recycled granule portions or second recycled body portion or adhesive body portion, and hence, even if only the color of the second panel portion is visible, the limitation would be met, especially given that the claims do not require any particular texture with respect to the second panel portion. The claims also do not require the sheet structure to provide “skin-friendly breathability” nor “stitchability” as argued by the Applicant in terms of alleged “unexpected technical effect”; nor are the claims directed to “a flexible, durable sheet structure” nor specifically to “footwear or apparel” as argued by the Applicant with respect to the “Different Field of Endeavor” on page 11, and given that Moore does not limit the “architectural panel” to “rigid building materials” as alleged by the Applicant, and is similarly directed to utilizing or recycling plastic waste material by reproduction of the recycled plastic products into a sheet structure having decorative or aesthetic properties as in the present invention, wherein said sheet structure of Moore is capable of use to manufacture a shoe upper or a vamp, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the Moore is non-analogous prior art, especially in light of Sasase or Yun or Min or Ito, and maintains her position that the claimed invention would have been obvious over the teachings of Moore for the reasons above.
Any objection or rejection from the prior office action not restated above has been withdrawn by the Examiner in light of Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments filed 11/27/2025.
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 MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787