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 .
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 20 is allowable over the prior art in view of the evidence that when a woven scrim layer is in tension when the fibrous layer is bonded to it, it will not have the claimed properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) of claim 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant points to evidence that the in [0112] to control the bonding point density. Bonding point density is not claimed. Additionally the evidence presented is based on providing tension to the woven scrim. Claim 19 does not required a woven scrim and therefore the claims are not commensurate in scope.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights