DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-3, 5-7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pourdeyhimi (US 2015/029218 A1) in view of Yoshiteru (JP 2001232708 (A)).
Claims 1, 3 and 5, Pourdeyhimi teaches a method of manufacturing (¶2) a lightweight (¶15) and flexible (¶98) web-structured (¶34) recycled leather (¶12 ¶36) sheet (¶13 ¶58) 100 (¶34), comprising manufacturing a non-woven fiber sheet 110 by mixing at least any one of natural yarn fiber, synthetic fiber, and recycled yarn, or combination thereof (¶8 ¶12 ¶16-18 ¶36 ¶43 ¶45-46 ¶94). The non-woven fiber sheet 110 is considered to be in a form of a non-woven fabric sheet since Pourdeyhimi teaches the same process step claimed to make such (i.e. mixing at least any one of natural yarn fiber, synthetic fiber, and recycled yarn, or combination thereof).
Pourdeyhimi teaches putting the non-woven fabric sheet 110 on a recycled leather which is fibrous. Specifically, more than one sheet 110 is present (¶20; teaches claim 5). Each sheet 110 comprises recycled leather (¶35-39 ¶71-72 ¶94).
Pourdeyhimi teaches then performing plantation treatment comprising doing such by a needle punching process (¶50 ¶78), thereby producing a plantation treated recycled leather.
Pourdeyhimi teaches impregnating the plantation treated recycled leather with a rubber-based adhesive, such as latex (same as applicant uses – claim 3 ultimately depends from claim 1 – thus latex is further limited by applicant as being eco-friendly), thereby manufacturing the recycled leather sheet of web structure (¶79 ¶91).
Pourdeyhimi teaches that the recycled leather sheet is used to make articles for footwear, furniture, and an interior of an automobile (¶100).
Claim 1, Pourdeyhimi does not teach needle punching the recycled leather sheet.
However, it is conventional and well-known in the art to needle punch a product made from a fiber-layer and a fibrous-resin-impregnated-layer, as demonstrated by Yoshiteru. Specifically, Yoshiteru teaches making fiber-material 1 comprising a fiber-layer (comprising at least fiber-layers 2, 3, and 4) and fibrous-resin-impregnated-layer 6. Thereafter, material 1 is needle punched (¶18 ¶20) and is used to make articles for an interior of automobiles. See Yoshiteru’s patent, English machine translation, Abstract, and paragraph 6.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provide in Pourdeyhimi needle punching the recycled leather sheet in that it is conventional and well-known in the art to needle punch a product made from a fiber-layer and a fibrous-resin-impregnated-layer (Pourdeyhimi teaches a fiber-layer and a fibrous-resin-impregnated-layer) as demonstrated by Yoshiteru in the same art – where Pourdeyhimi and Yoshiteru both use the product for making articles for an interior of automobiles.
Claim 1, Pourdeyhimi does not teach a thickness of the non-woven fiber sheet 110 to be 10-500mm. With respect to the claimed numerical value range for the thickness that one skilled in the art would consider using is a function of, among other variables, the use of the final product, pressure of press rolling process, materials of the product, and post operations of the product. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have optimized the claimed numerical value which one skilled in the art would consider based on known variables, as those listed; and thus, the claimed value range cannot be considered critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum and workable ranges by routine experimentation,” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 195). “It is a well settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same this as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results that prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Claim 2, Pourdeyhimi teaches that the method of claim 1 further comprises drying the impregnated recycled leather (¶24 ¶63 ¶91-92). Pourdeyhimi teaches uniformity in further treating on a surface of the impregnated recycled leather by a press roll process in that (¶64 ¶88).
Further for claim 5, Pourdeyhimi teaches that the non-woven fiber sheet 110 is symmetrically composed of two layers in that more than one sheet 110 is present (¶35-39 ¶71-72 ¶94) such that three sheets 110 are symmetrical about each other.
Claim 6, Pourdeyhimi teaches that the method of claim 5 further comprises combining synthetic fibers with a surface of the plantation treated recycled leather (¶78) combining synthetic fibers (¶17) and painting on this surface by coating (¶24 ¶92).
Claim 7, Pourdeyhimi teaches that the non-woven fiber sheet comprises: preparing short fiber (any length necessarily constitutes “short”) using at least any one of natural yarn fiber (¶8 ¶17), synthetic fiber (¶17), and recycled yarn (¶8 ¶12 ¶17 ¶36), and then mixing (¶16) at least the short fiber, and then a process of manufacturing it into a non-woven fiber sheet 110 (¶16 ¶s34-37).
Claim 7, Pourdeyhimi does not teach preparing 0.1-500mm long fibers which are not (as recited in claim 7) used to manufacture the non-woven fiber sheet 110. With respect to the claimed numerical value range for the long fibers (the length or diameter or radius or circumference (i.e. various dimension of the long fibers not specifically disclosed) that one skilled in the art would consider using is a function of, among other variables, whether one intends to use of long fibers to make the non-woven fiber sheet, the material making up the fibers, and the intended properties of the non-woven fiber sheet. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have optimized the claimed numerical value which one skilled in the art would consider based on known variables, as those listed; and thus, the claimed value range cannot be considered critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum and workable ranges by routine experimentation,” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 195). “It is a well settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same this as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results that prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Claim 10, Pourdeyhimi teaches a recycled leather sheet of the web structure manufactured with the method of claim 1: Pourdeyhimi teaches a method of manufacturing (¶2) a lightweight (¶15) and flexible (¶98) web-structured (¶34) recycled leather (¶12 ¶36) sheet (¶13 ¶58) 100 (¶34), comprising manufacturing a non-woven fiber sheet 110 by mixing at least any one of natural yarn fiber, synthetic fiber, and recycled yarn, or combination thereof (¶8 ¶12 ¶16-18 ¶36 ¶43 ¶45-46 ¶94). The non-woven fiber sheet 110 is considered to be in a form of a non-woven fabric sheet since Pourdeyhimi teaches the same process step claimed to make such (i.e. mixing at least any one of natural yarn fiber, synthetic fiber, and recycled yarn, or combination thereof).
Pourdeyhimi teaches putting the non-woven fabric sheet 110 on a recycled leather. Specifically, more than one sheet 110 is present (¶20; teaches claim 5). Each sheet 110 comprises recycled leather (¶35-39 ¶71-72 ¶94).
Pourdeyhimi teaches then performing plantation treatment comprising doing such by a needle punching process (¶50 ¶78), thereby producing a plantation treated recycled leather.
Pourdeyhimi teaches impregnating the plantation treated recycled leather with a rubber-based adhesive, such as latex (same as applicant uses – claim 3 ultimately depends from claim 1 – thus latex is further limited by applicant as being eco-friendly), thereby manufacturing the recycled leather sheet of web structure (¶79 ¶91).
Claim 10, Pourdeyhimi does not teach needle punching the recycled leather sheet.
However, it is conventional and well-known in the art to needle punch a product made from a fiber-layer and a fibrous-resin-impregnated-layer, as demonstrated by Yoshiteru. Specifically, Yoshiteru teaches making fiber-material 1 comprising a fiber-layer (comprising at least fiber-layers 2, 3, and 4) and fibrous-resin-impregnated-layer 6. Thereafter, material 1 is needle punched (¶18 ¶20) and is used to make articles for an interior of automobiles. See Yoshiteru’s patent and English machine translation. See Yoshiteru’s patent, English machine translation, Abstract, and paragraph 6.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provide in Pourdeyhimi needle punching the recycled leather sheet in that it is conventional and well-known in the art to needle punch a product made from a fiber-layer and a fibrous-resin-impregnated-layer (Pourdeyhimi teaches a fiber-layer and a fibrous-resin-impregnated-layer) as demonstrated by Yoshiteru in the same art – where Pourdeyhimi and Yoshiteru both use the product for making articles for an interior of automobiles.
The method of claim 10 is taught by Pourdeyhimi in view of Yoshiteru as shown above such that the claimed recycled leather sheet is taught by Pourdeyhimi.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pourdeyhimi, as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10 above, and further in view of Lee (KR 202300337769 A).
Claim 8, Pourdeyhimi teaches using a mixture of natural fiber, synthetic fiber, and recycled yarn (¶8 ¶12 ¶17 ¶36).
Claim 8, Pourdeyhimi does not teach that a mixing ratio of the natural fiber: the synthetic fiber: the recycled yarn of 7:3:1, 6 :2:2, or 5:3:2.
Lee teaches making a web material having a natural leather appearance (abstract) where first a mixture is prepared which is part of the material at layer 130. The mixture comprises natural fibers, synthetic fibers, and recycled yarn (pg5 ¶3-4). A mixing ratio of the natural fiber: the synthetic fiber is 60:90 (pg5 ¶5). However, the ratio of fibers can be adjusted for product characteristics such as physical properties (pg5 ¶5). Thus, Lee teaches this ratio to be a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provided in Lee optimization of the ratio of the fibers in the mixture to optimize the physical characteristics such as physical properties as suggest by Lee in the same art as Pourdeyhimi; thus, the claimed ratios cannot be considered critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum and workable ranges by routine experimentation,” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 195). “It is a well settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same this as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results that prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Conclusion
The amendments and comments filed 3-3-26 have been entered and fully considered. With respect to the claim limitation added to claim 1 – that a thickness of the non-woven fiber sheet 110 is 10 to 500 mm – absent a showing of criticality of the claimed thickness the following is still considered to apply:
the thickness that one skilled in the art would consider using is a function of, among other variables, the use of the final product, pressure of press rolling process, materials of the product, and post operations of the product. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have optimized the claimed numerical value which one skilled in the art would consider based on known variables, as those listed; and thus, the claimed value range cannot be considered critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum and workable ranges by routine experimentation,” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 195). “It is a well settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same this as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results that prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
With respect to claim 8, Lee teaches making a web material having a natural leather appearance (abstract) where first a mixture is prepared which is part of the material at layer 130. The mixture comprises natural fibers, synthetic fibers, and recycled yarn (pg5 ¶3-4). A mixing ratio of the natural fiber: the synthetic fiber is 60:90 (pg5 ¶5). However, the ratio of fibers can be adjusted for product characteristics such as physical properties (pg5 ¶5). Thus, Lee teaches this ratio to be a result effective variable. Given that the recycled yarn is present in the mixture of both reference, that the recycled yarn is necessarily present in a particular ratio relative to the natural fibers and synthetic fibers, and that the ratio values of Lee can be adjusted for product characteristics such as physical properties (pg5 ¶5) – absent a showing of criticality of the claimed ratios the following is still considered to apply:
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provided in Lee optimization of the ratio of the fibers in the mixture to optimize the physical characteristics such as physical properties as suggest by Lee in the same art as Pourdeyhimi; thus, the claimed ratios cannot be considered critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum and workable ranges by routine experimentation,” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 195). “It is a well settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same this as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results that prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LINDA GRAY whose telephone number is (571) 272-5778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 AM to 5:30 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, Phil Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/LINDA L GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745