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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 19-26 in the reply filed on 10/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the woven scrim layer" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous lines of claim 20 and previous claim 19 do not recite a woven scrim layer.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is not clear whether the limitation in line 12 “and which has an elongation of 3% or greater under 500 gf/cm constant load in the MD.” is describing the artificial leather or the scrim. For purposes of examination it will be interpreted as related to the artificial leather as it is under item (8).
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.
Claims 19 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikura et al (JP2014227637).
Ikura is directed to an artificial leather made from a nonwoven that has good touch feeling, high abrasion resistance, flame retardancy and a multilayer structure of at least 2 layers comprising a surface fiber layer and a scrim layer that is a fiber structure that satisfies (1) the surface fiber layer is composed of at least one main fiber and a thermoplastic resin having a melting point that is less than the main fiber by 20°C or more; (2) at least a part of the thermoplastic resin are exposed in a massive shape at the surface of the surface fiber layer; (3) at least a part of the thermoplastic resin adhere between the main fibers (ABST).
Ikura teaches a main fiber and a thermoplastic resin having with a melting point that is less than the melting point of the main fiber by 20°C or more which is in the range of 20°C to 170°C as claimed and overlaps the claimed range.
Ikura teaches the main fibers have a fiber fineness of 0.6 dtex or less; 0.35 dtex or less, preferably 0.2 dtex or less and more than 0.001 dtex and 0.003 dtex or more (page 3, para 2).
Ikura teaches the main fiber fineness overlaps the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.5 dtex. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Ikura teaches the thermoplastic resin can be in the form of heat fusible fibers mixed with the main fibers, Example 1-1 with polyester main fibers melting point of 255°C and polyester copolymer as the fusible fiber with melting point of 180°C. The surface fiber layer of example 1-1 and papermaking sheet of example 2-1 was laminated to woven scrim and entangled by jetting and then integrated at 100C using an air through dryer (page 7, last paragraph; page 8 first paragraph).
Ikura teaches a main fiber and a heat fusible fibers made from the thermoplastic resin and the heat fusible fiber is fully fusible so that the molten resin has a sufficient number of point for fusing the main fibers (page 4, last paragraph).
Ikura differs and does not measure the number average volume and the volume number density. As Ikura teaches the same materials, structure and substantially the same method of making the leather sheet, it is reasonable to presume that the nonwoven artificial leather of Ikura inherently has the claimed properties and features.
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a nonwoven laminate of the claimed materials and method motivated to produce an abrasion resistant and surface textured leather sheet.
As to claim 21, Ikura teaches the main fibers can be polyester fibers (page 2 and 3, last para and first paragraph respectively and example 1-1 page 7).
As to claim 22, Ikura teaches the fusible fibers (made from the thermoplastic resin) can be a polyester copolymer (page 5, 2nd paragraph; example 1-1, page 7).
As to claim 23, Ikura teaches the scrim layer is preferably the same polymer as the main fiber and as the main fiber is polyester, Ikura teaches a polyester scrim (page 4, 3rd para).
As to claim 24, Ikura measures the abrasion resistance by abrasion after 20000; 30000 and 40000 times which in the range of less than 50000 abrasion cycles when the abrasion is under pressure load of 12kPa by JIS-L-1096 E (page 7, lines 9-16).
As to claim 25, Ikura does not measure the abrasion loss is 21 mg or less after 50,000 abrasion cycles.
Ikura teaches the same materials and structure, made by substantially the same method and therefore reasonable to presume the property is inherent to Ikura.
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a nonwoven laminate of the claimed materials and method motivated to produce an abrasion resistant and surface textured leather sheet.
As to claim 26, Ikura does not measure the flexural rigidity. As Ikura teaches the sheet is elastic which is substantially the same as flexible, and teaches same materials, structure and substantially the same method of making the leather sheet, it is reasonable to presume that the nonwoven artificial leather of Ikura inherently has the claimed properties and features.
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a nonwoven laminate of the claimed materials and method motivated to produce an abrasion resistant and surface textured leather sheet.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikura et al (JP2014227637) in view of Ishida et al (JP2017137588).
As to claim 20, Ikura teaches the surface fiber layer is entangled with a woven scrim layer (page 5, para 10).
Ikura teaches a surface fiber layer and thermoplastic resin exposed in a massive shape at the surface which is equated with the claimed thermoplastic resin exposed on the surface of the front side fiber layer.
Ikura differs and does not measure the projected area mean value of the resin mass.
Ikura differs and does not measure (A) the sum elongation in the MD and CD at 500gf and does not measure (B) the sum of the scrim layer woven density in the MD and woven density in the CD direction and (C) does not teach the fineness of the scrim yarn.
Ikura does not teach the artificial leather has an elongation at 3% or greater under 500 gf/cm constant load in the MD.
Ishida is directed to artificial leather that has elongation (Title). Ishida teaches the artificial leather has a scrim and multifilament yarn in the scrim is 55-220 dtex (C) and a weaving density of 20-50 per inch (B) and elongation at break of 60% (A) and constant load extension at 500 g/cm of 10% (ABST).
Ishida meets the claimed limitation of an elongation of 3% or greater under 500 gf/cm constant load in the MD as 10% is greater than 3%.
Ishida teaches the yarn density of the multifilament yarn constituting the scrim is 20 to 50 yarns / inch. When the number is less than 20 / inch, the dimensional stability is not preferable. When it exceeds 50 / inch, the constant load elongation of 500 g / cm becomes small, the follow-up of the artificial leather becomes worse, and the moldability is lowered, which is not preferable. More preferably, it is 20-40 lines / inch. More preferably, it is 20-30 lines / inch (page 2, para 4). Regarding the weaving density, Ishida teaches the warp density is 54 yarn/inch and weft is 54/inch (page 10, para 4).
Ishida teaches the breaking elongation is 60% or more in one direction of warp or weft. When the elongation at break is less than 60%, it is not preferable from the viewpoint that the artificial leather is wrinkled or ear part easily torn (page 2, para 5 and 6). Ishida teaches the elongation of 60% or more in one direction of warp or weft. As noted it is warp or weft, for purposes of examination and incorporating into the formula each of the warp and weft will be 60% and therefore 120% for calculating purposes.
Incorporating the variables for (A), (B) and (C) into formula; (A) is 120%; (B) is 20 +20 or 30+30 or 40+40; (C) is 55 dtex. 120 x 40 x 55 = 264,000 and in the claimed range of 220,000-600,000. At the upper end of the range, 120x80x220 = 2,112,000. In the middle range 120x60x100 = 720,000.
Ishida teaches embodiments that overlap the claimed range of 220,000 to 600,000.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the scrim of Ishida motivated to produce a leather with elongation.
Ikura and Ishida differ and do not measure the projected area mean value of the resin mass. As Ikura in view of Ishida teach the same materials and structure and thermoplastic resin masses on the surface, it is reasonable to presume that the property is inherent to the combination. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention the examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a nonwoven laminate of the claimed materials and method motivated to produce an abrasion resistant and surface textured leather sheet with elongation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789