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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/9/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s remarks filed 6/9/26 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102019000203A1 (reference and Office Action provided by Applicants) in view of CN105086734 (reference and Office Action provided by Applicants) (see Applicant’s NPL 6/9/26).
With regard to claims 1, 11, 14 and 17, the published DE document discloses an eco-friendly waterproof coating for cotton fabrics composed of a starch-pectin composition, as well as its preparation method and uses, including as a substitute for animal leather (see Applicant’s NPL 6/9/26). Published DE document discloses a layered composite material for synthetic leather formed by applying a gel mixture (pectin as binder, potato starch/dextrin as gum, glycerol as humectant, NaCl) onto a cotton fabric carrier layer. Potato starch heated under acidic conditions yields dextrin (cf. Common Knowledge Evidence 1), which corresponds to the gum as defined in the present application. (see Applicant’s NPL 6/9/26). The differences between claim 1 and prior art DE Document are: (a) type of polysaccharide binder (agar vs. pectin); (b) filler optionally includes lignin or plant leaves. Agar and pectin are both well-known polysaccharide gelling agents with film-forming properties, and agar is a known binder in the textile industry (cf. Common Knowledge Evidence 3). A skilled person in the art would be motivated to select and substitute among known polysaccharide binders to broaden the raw material base. Lignin is a commonly used filler in synthetic leather that increases volume and reduces cost (cf. Common Knowledge Evidence 2: "Chemistry and Technology of Synthetic Leather", Ma Xingyuan et al., China Light Industry Press, pp. 73-74, Nov. 2015). A skilled person can add it routinely, and the application demonstrates no unexpected technical effect from lignin. (see Applicant’s NPL 6/9/26).
The published DE document does not teach the claimed plant leaves.
The published CN document discloses a flame-retardant latex paint containing plant leaf material as a filler in a coating, imparting decorative and functional effects. Since the decorative layer of the present application is also a coating material, the Examiner is of the position that person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to improve appearance and functionality would be motivated to incorporate plant leaf material into the decorative layer. (see Applicant’s NPL 6/9/26). Therefore, motivated to impart decorative features to an imitation leather product it would have been obvious to formulate the coating of the published DE document with the plant leaf filler material as taught in the published CN document.
With regard to claim 2: The published DE document discloses glycerol as humectant. (see Applicant’s NPL 6/9/26).
With regard to claim 3: The cited references do not specifically teach the claimed inorganic salt filler materials; however, absent unexpected results it would be within the skill of an ordinary worker in the art to further incorporate fillers such as those claimed as a function of cost, availability, desired coating properties, etc. Iron oxides, titanium dioxide, chalk, kaolin, marble powder, and zeolite are common inorganic fillers in synthetic leather; the modification involves the mere substitution of one material with another material known for its suitability as an inorganic salt/filler and would yield a predictable variation whose application is well within the skill of the art.
Claim 4: The published DE reference discloses starch glue (dextrin from potato starch) (see Applicant’s NPL 6/9/26).
Claims 5-7: The published DE reference discloses specific amounts of pectin, starch, and glycerol; a skilled person can adjust component ratios based on function and results. the published cited references do not teach the claimed ratios of filler to binder. The Examiner is of the position that it would be obvious to optimize the ratios of the individual constituents based on desired binding, moisture and/or decorative properties. It has been held that the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable that might be characterized as routine experimentation is not patentable. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 8: The published DE reference discloses cotton fabric but does not specifically teach a woven or non-woven fabric. The Examiner is of the position that woven and non-woven fabrics are commonly known textile structures. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a known textile structure. The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 199, 125 USPQ 416, 418 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 9: The cited published references do not explicitly teach using additional adhesive/binder layers. The Examiner is of the position that since the references are concerned with forming imitation leather/decorative imitation leather it would be within the skill of an ordinary worker in the art to use additional binder and/or adhesive layers to attach additional layers (e.g., skin layers/decorative layers) depending on desired end use.
Claim 10: Since the published DE reference teach using the impregnated fabric as an imitation leather the Examiner is of the position that it would obvious to use said imitation leather in the fields of clothes, shoes, bags, sandals, and the like.
Claims 12, 13 and 15: Example (see published DE document): A pectin solution was prepared from 2 g of pectin (Classic AU 702, Herbstreith & Fox) and 40 ml of hot water. 6 g of potato starch was dissolved in 50 ml of cold water and combined with the pectin solution. 10 ml of 0.1 mol/l HCI and 6 ml of glycerol (plasticizer) were added. The mixture was stirred in a boiling water bath until gel state was reached, kept for 15 more minutes, then neutralized with 10 ml of 0.1 mol/l NaOH to yield NaCl. Sodium ions caused the pectin to gel. The composition was applied to a cotton fabric (21 cm X 13 cm) and sprayed with ethanol (>=85%). After drying, the product had a texture and durability strongly reminiscent of animal leather and was waterproof. Products such as wallets and bags remained intact in moderate rain for four hours. (see Applicant’s NPL 6/9/26). The Examiner is of the position that the method limitations of dissolving and removing are met. The Examiner is also of the position that the entire surface of the cotton fabric is coated with the composition.
Claim 16: The published DE reference does not explicitly teach providing decorative surface features or embossing the surface of the impregnated fabric; however, the Examiner is of the position that since the impregnated fabric is specifically used as an imitation leather it would be within the skill of an ordinary worker in the art to provide the imitation leather product of the published DE reference with a decorative surface and/or to emboss the surface with patterned embossing rollers. Motivation to pattern emboss the surface of the imitation leather is found in the desire to provide a decorative design, a logo and/or surface properties.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights