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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 12, 2026, 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 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH 09-59882 to Ashida in view of WO 2018/168596 to Fujimura, with USPN 11,325,842 cited as the English equivalent, and US Pub. No. 2006/0008641 to Kiehne.
Regarding claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 18-21, Ashida teaches artificial leather with a fiber entangled nonwoven fabric substrate and a surface layer which reflects infrared rays, thereby suppressing the temperature rise inside and on the back side of the artificial leather, and reducing the feeling of stuffiness while being flexible, which is particularly suitable for use in shoes, gloves, clothing, etc. (Ashida, Abstract, paragraphs 0001, 0004-0012). Ashida teaches that from the viewpoints of hiding power and production costs, the invention uses a two-layer structure where an infrared reflective pigment is used in the upper layer and ordinary carbon black is used in the lower layer (Id., paragraph 0016). Ashida teaches that the thickness of the laminated resin layer is preferably within the range of 30 to 100 µm to hide the color of the base layer (Id.). Note that since the laminated resin layer is a two-layer structure, the thicknesses of the two layers combined is within the range of 30 to 100 µm. Ashida teaches that the quality of the product can be improved by adding a black pigment, typically carbon black, in the range of 0.1 to 5% by weight based on the resin, taking into account the balance between blackness and physical properties (Id., paragraph 0012). Ashida teaches that the black pigment that reflects infrared rays exhibits a reflectance of 800 nm infrared rays of 70% or more, wherein the pigment is added at 2% by weight or more (Id., paragraphs 0004, 0005, 0014). Ashida teaches that the artificial leather, in spite of its black color, shows and extremely low temperature rise due to infrared rays, and has moderate elasticity and flexibility, and its texture, appearance, and performance are extremely similar to natural leather (Id., paragraph 0024).
Ashida teaches a black pigment that reflects infrared rays (Ashida, paragraph 0014), but does not appear to teach the claimed amount of pigment and the claimed infrared-reflective black pigment.
Regarding the claimed pigment, Fujimura teaches a near infrared-reflective black pigment containing at least the element calcium, titanium and manganese mixed by a wet grinding method and calcined at a temperature higher than 1100ºC, to provide a BET specific surface area of at least 1.0 m2/g and less than 3.0 m2/g (Fujimura, Abstract, column 9 lines 1-9). Note that Applicants’ specification at paragraph 0028 teaches a similar pigment formed by an identical method. Fujimura teaches that the near-infrared black pigment has a perovskite phase, wherein three “O” exist (Id., column 4 lines 2-12). Fujimura teaches that the reflectance at a wavelength of 1200 nm can be 57%, and that the solar reflectance in a wavelength range of 780 to 2500 nm can be 35% or more (Id., column 5 lines 13-25, Fig. 3). Fujimura teaches that the pigment can be mixed with an inorganic pigment including carbon black to adjust the color (Id., column 14 line 63 to column 15 line 14). Fujimura teaches the pigment can be used for a resin composition, including a urethane-based resin (Id., column 15 lines 38-45, column 16 lines 37-55). Fujimura teaches that the pigment is effective in relieving the heat island phenomenon and increasing cooling efficiency (Id., column 24 lines 34-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the synthetic leather of Ashida, wherein the infrared reflective black pigment comprises the black pigment, as taught by Fujimura, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional artificial leather product comprising a suitable infrared black pigment having the desired properties including reflectance, and based on the desired cooling properties of the resulting resin composition.
Regarding the claimed amount of pigment, Kiehne teaches a similar IR-reflective film including at least one IR-reflective pigment suitable for thermally protective coatings (Kiehne, Abstract), having a thickness in the range from 3 to 200 µm (Id., paragraph 0002), particularly preferably 10 to 100 µm (Id., paragraph 0037). Kiehne teaches that suitable IR-reflective pigments are coated with metal oxides (Id., paragraph 0040). Kiehne teaches that the concentration of the pigments is from 0.5 to 50% by weight, based on the weight of the film (Id., paragraph 0039). Kiehne teaches that the bulk density is generally from 0.75 to 1.0 kg/dm3, such as 750 kg/m3 (Id., paragraphs 0033, 0109-0110). Note that a film having a thickness of 10 µm, a bulk density of 750 kg/m3, and 10% of IR-reflective pigment results in the amount of IR-reflective pigment being 7.5 g/m2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the synthetic leather of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the amount the infrared reflective black pigment, such as within the claimed amount, as taught by Kiehne, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional artificial leather product comprising a suitable amount of infrared reflective pigment known in the art as being predictably suitable for similar films having overlapping thicknesses and percentage amounts.
Regarding the claimed reflectance, solar reflectance, and transmittance, the prior art combination appears to establish the claimed properties. Additionally, regarding the claimed lightness value and reflection intensity, the prior art combination does not appear to specifically disclose the claimed properties. However, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the properties naturally flow from the invention of the prior art combination, as the prior art teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed. Products of identical structure cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claims 6, 9, 10, 15, and 18, the prior art combination does not appear to require carbon black in the skin layer.
Regarding claim 8, although the prior art combination does not specifically recite a backpack, artificial leather materials are well known in the art as being suitable for various garments and accessories including backpacks. Therefore, although the prior art does not appear to teach the claimed backpack, either the synthetic leather material of the prior art is within the scope of the claimed backpack, or it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the synthetic leather of the prior art combination, for use in a backpack, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional artificial leather product for an end use typical for use with leather and artificial leather materials.
Regarding claims 19-21, since the prior art combination teaches that the thickness of the laminated resin layer is preferably within the range of 30 to 100 µm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the synthetic leather of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the thicknesses of the layers such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Ashida, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional artificial leather product having the desired thicknesses based on the totality of the teachings of Ashida.
Claims 14 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashida in view of Fujimura and Kiehne, as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 18-21 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2016/0129665 to Cho.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed porous layer. However, Cho teaches a synthetic leather including a fiber base layer, a urethane porous layer formed on the fiber base layer, and a polyurethane resin skin layer formed on the urethane porous layer (Cho, Abstract). Cho teaches that the leather may further include a polyurethane surface treatment coating layer on the surface of the polyurethane skin layer (Id., paragraph 0077). Cho teaches that the urethane porous layer has an average thickness of about 0.1 to 0.4 mm (Id., paragraph 0061), that the skin layer has a thickness of about 0.05 to 0.3 mm (Id., paragraph 0076), and that the surface treatment coating layer may have an average thickness of about 0.01 to 0.02 mm (Id., paragraph 0084). Cho teaches that the surface treatment coating liquid may include inorganic-based micropowders at a content of about 1 to 10 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the surface treatment coating liquid (Id., paragraph 0082). Cho teaches that the incorporation of a urethane porous layer between a nonwoven fabric and a layer has structurally strong binding power on nonwoven fabrics thereby complementing hydrolysis resistance, heat resistance, chemical resistance, and mechanical properties compared to existing synthetic leather (Id., paragraph 0008). Cho teaches that when examining the physical property test results of the urethane porous sheets, the Examples obtained superior properties when the degree of physical property changes was compared after the hydrolysis resistance and heat aging resistance tests (Id., paragraph 0139, Table 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the synthetic leather of the prior art combination, and including a urethane porous layer between the fiber layer and the resin layer and having a thickness, such as within the claimed range, as taught by Cho, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional artificial leather product predictably improved binding power and properties including hydrolysis and heat resistance, suitable for the intended application.
Additionally, regarding the thicknesses of the layers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the synthetic leather of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the thicknesses of the layers such as within the claimed ranges, as taught by Cho and Ashida, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional artificial leather product having the desired thicknesses based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot based on the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights