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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/28/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the remarks and amendments filed on 1/28/26. Claims 1, 6, and 10 have been amended. Claims 3, 8, and 9 have been canceled. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 10 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki USPA_20230073584_A1 in view of Liao USPA_20230106419_A1 and Holt USPA_20090054574_A1.
1. Regarding Claims 1, 2, 6, and 10, Yamasaki discloses a vinyl chloride resin plasticizing agent that can be used to form various leathers (paragraph 0113) comprising an alkylene glycol such as 2-methyl-1,3-propane diol, neopentyl glycol and diethylene glycol (corresponds to claimed diol raw material) (Claim 12), an alkylenedicarboxylic acid such as sebacic acid and dodecanedicarboxylic acid (corresponds to claimed dibasic acid raw material) (Claim 19), and a hydrogenated vegetable oil fatty acid that serves as an end-capped fatty acid such as coconut oil fatty acid, palm kernel oil, and palm oil (corresponds to claimed end-capped fatty acids of instant Claims 1 and 2) (Claim 10 and paragraphs 0063, 0066). Yamasaki further discloses that its raw materials are biomass-derived (paragraph 0071) and reacted through an esterification process (corresponds to claimed polycondensation) (paragraphs 0072-0075) that results in one end of the chain having a carboxyl group (paragraph 0066), as is being claimed in instant Claims 1 and 6. Given that Yamasaki does not disclose any intentional residual amount, it would be expected for the residual amount of its diol raw material to be in trace amounts, less than that of the claimed 300 ppm. Also, Yamasaki discloses that the acid value of its plasticizer is 0.8 and lower in all of its examples and this is what is more preferred (paragraph 0048).
2. However, Yamasaki does not disclose the top and basic fabric layers for its leather. It also does not disclose the claimed molar ratios.
3. Liao discloses polyvinyl chloride artificial (corresponds to claimed synthetic) leather without a foaming structure (Title) that can comprise a base fabric layer and a top fabric layer over thereof wherein said top fabric layer has a fabric composition comprising 40 to 70 parts by weight of a PCV resin and 30 to 60 parts by weight of a polymer plasticizer (Abstract) that results in a reduced odor of said artificial leather (paragraph 0012).
4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the leather, of Yamasaki, by forming the artificial leather comprised of a base and top fabric layers in the aforementioned pbw compositions, of Liao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to obtain an odor-reduced synthetic leather for the purpose of furthering the utility of its invention.
5. Holt discloses a low VOC reducer compound comprising a diol, carboxylic acid, and a fatty acid (Abstract) that can be used in fabrics (paragraph 0002) It is well known that low VOC is a detector for smells and odors.
6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the concentrations of diol, dibasic, and fatty acid, of Yamasaki, by trying different concentrations out of a desire of optimizing low volatile organic content, as disclosed by Holt. Applicants have not indicated what unexpected and surprising properties result from the instantly claimed concentrations.
7. Regarding Claim 4, Yamasaki in view of Liao and Holt suggests using a stabilizer in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 20 parts (Yamasaki: paragraph 0089), such as lithium stearate (paragraph 0088).
8. Regarding Claim 5, Yamasaki in view of Liao and Holt suggests using no foaming layer.
9. Regarding Claim 7, Yamasaki in view of Liao and Holt suggests its esterification process entails ends of a chemical structure of the high-molecular weight polyester polyol has excessive hydroxyl-groups and an end-capping process that includes the biomass derived fatty acid so as to terminate the polycondensation reaction (Yamasaki: paragraphs 0061-0066).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claim(s) have been 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 February 8, 2026