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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Agosti (EP 3589489A) The published, patented, equivalent of Agosti will be used for citations (EP3589489B). Regarding claim 1, Agosti discloses “a module for inline embossing of a leather product (paragraphs 1 and 2) comprising a leather support sheet (paragraph 95) having a surface finish layer of one or more partially cured coating layers (paragraph 97), said module comprising at least: an application means (item 19) including a first pair of rollers (items 19a and 19b) configured to, in use, apply a protective foil (item 5) onto the partially cured layer (paragraph 97) by feeding the protective foil and leather product between the first pair of rollers so as to form a laminate in which the protective foil and the coated leather product are bonded by the partially cured layer (paragraphs 104 and 116), said first pair of rollers including an ironing roller (item 19a) and a first counter roller (item 19b), and a pressure group (item 20) including a second pair of rollers (items 20a and 20b) configured to, in use, apply an embossing pressure to the laminate between the second pair of rollers, said second pair of rollers including an embossing roller (item 20a) having an outer surface with a relief structure (Figure 1D) and a second counter roller (item 20b), so as to emboss a negative of the surface relief structure into the leather product, across the protective foil (Figure 1F); wherein the module is configured to, in use, convey the leather product from the application means past the pressure group by means of an elongate sheet of the foil (Figure 1) conveyed along a conveying trajectory (arrow 22) from a foil supply (item 71) provided upstream of the laminating means to a foil retriever (item 51) provided downstream of the pressure group, and wherein the protective foil acts as a web for conveying the leather product from the application means to and through the pressure group (see the section between rollers 19 and the separation roller in Figure 1), while protecting the partially cured coating layer during processing (since the layer 5 is on top of the partially cured layer, this limitation is implicitly met).” Regarding claim 4, Agosti further discloses “further comprising a tensioning means (Figure 5) positioned between the application means and the pressure group, said tensioning means comprising a deflection roller (item 521) that is positionable to impart a tension force to the conveyed elongate sheet of foil.” Regarding claim 5, Agosti further discloses “comprising one or more temperature control means for individually controlling a working temperature of the ironing roller and/or the embossing roller (paragraph 120).” Regarding claim 8, Agosti further discloses “comprising one or more adjustable rollers (item 521) for, during an idle condition, directing the conveying trajectory for the elongate sheet of foil to an idle position whereby foil conveyed along the conveying trajectory is out of a direct contact with the ironing roller and/or the embossing roller.” Examiner notes that item 521 is more than capable of moving the foil trajectory so that it is not in contact with roller 20a.
Regarding claim 10, Agosti further discloses “wherein the second counter roller is provided as part of a modular unit, whereby the unit including second counter roller and the felt layer is reversibly removable without detaching a mounted embossing roller (see the configuration in Figure 1).” Examiner notes that the roller 19b is not shown as being integral with roller 19a; thus, Examiner considers it to be ‘reversibly removable without detaching a mounted embossing roller.” Regarding claim 11, Agosti further discloses “provided with a driving controller configured to synchronize: a driving speed of the foil retriever; a driving speed of the ironing rolling and/or the first counter roller; and a driving speed of the embossing roller and/or the second counter roller (paragraph 153).” Examiner interprets whatever is used to control the speed V as the recited driving controller, and further interprets them all to be synchronized in that there is no disclosure of V being different at any point in the process. Regarding claim 13, Agosti further discloses “comprising means configured to: maintain the ironing roller at a working temperature in a range between 30°C and 100°C (paragraph 124), to maintain a laminating pressure between the first pair of rollers in a range between 5 and 20 kg/cm2 (paragraph 123), to maintain the embossing roller at a working temperature in a range between 50°C and 150°C (paragraph 136), and means configured to maintain an embossing pressure between the second pair of rollers in a range between 50 and 150 kg/cm2 (paragraph 135).” Regarding claim 14, Agosti further discloses “comprising an input conveyor (item 17) configured to receive a leather support sheet (item 9) having a surface finish layer of one or more partially cured (paragraph 97) coating layers (item 10) from a preceding processing unit, such as a coat applicator.” Regarding claim 16, Agosti further discloses “wherein at least one of the ironing roller and the first counter roller is displaceable along a respective displacement trajectory (paragraph 118).” Regarding the limitation “such that a position of the rollers in the first pair of rollers is adjustable relative to each other to adjust a gap distance between the ironing roller and the first counter roller in dependence on a thickness of the leather support sheet during embossing,” the claim merely requires that the relative position of the two rollers is able to be adjusted in dependence on a thickness of the leather support sheet. Since the position of cylinder 19a is able to be changed relative to cylinder 19b, the arrangement of Agosti is more than capable of performing this intended use.
Regarding claim 18, Agosti further discloses “wherein at least one of the embossing roller and the second counter roller is displaceable along a respective displacement trajectory (paragraph 131).” Regarding the limitation “such that a position of the rollers in the second pair of rollers is adjustable relative to each other to adjust a gap distance between the embossing roller and the second counter roller in dependence on a thickness of the leather support sheet during embossing,” the claim merely requires that the relative position of the two rollers is able to be adjusted in dependence on a thickness of the leather support sheet. Since the position of cylinder 20a is able to be changed relative to cylinder 20b, the arrangement of Agosti is more than capable of performing this intended use. Regarding the limitation “while maintaining a substantially uniform embossing pressure across the leather surface,” it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by an identical or substantially identical process, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP §2112.01. In this instance, since the modified roller of Agosti is at least substantially identical to that claimed, the recited feature of “while maintaining a substantially uniform embossing pressure across the leather surface” is presumed to be present in the modified module of Agosti.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agosti.
Regarding claim 9, Agosti discloses all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, except “comprising a supply for holding one or more substitute ones of the ironing roller and/or the embossing roller and means for preheating at least one of the substitutes.” However, Examiner takes Official Notice that, at the time of filing of the invention, it was known to have backup components of a system in order to minimize down time in the event of a problem with the components. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have a backup ironing or embossing roller in order to minimize any downtime in the event of a problem with either of the ironing or embossing roller. Examiner further notes that the heating means 7 would be more than capable of preheating the substitute roller(s). Since Applicant did not traverse that which was asserted as being common knowledge, that which was taken to be common knowledge is now considered to be admitted prior art. See MPEP §2144.03(c). Regarding claim 12, Agosti, as modified, discloses all that is claimed, as in claim 11 above, including that the speed V is controllable (paragraph 153), but fails to disclose “wherein the driving controller is further configured to adjust a conveying speed of the elongate sheet of foil in dependence of an output rate of an upstream system supplying leather support sheets having a surface finish layer of one or more partially cured coating layers.” However, logically, one having ordinary skill in the art would realize that the amount of foil being fed into the system should be only the amount needed by the amount of leather support sheets being fed into the system. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the controller of Agosti adjust the feed speed of the foil such that it matches the amount needed by the feed amount of the leather support sheets.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Blakey (US 3963820).
Regarding claim 6, Agosti discloses all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, except “wherein the first counter roller is coated with an elastomeric surface finish having a thickness and stiffness configured to accommodate thickness variations of the leather support sheet.” However, Blakey discloses that a pressure/counter roller can be either non-resilient, or be resilient in that it is a steel roll covered with rubber (column 4, lines 41-46). It has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.07. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a steel roller covered in rubber as the first counter roller of Agosti because it is recognized in the art as being suitable for the intended purpose of being a counter roller. Regarding claim 17, Agosti discloses all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, except “the second counter roller is provided with a felt layer arranged around said second counter roller to locally accommodate thickness variation of the leather support sheet, while maintaining substantially uniform embossing pressure across the leather surface.” However, Blakey discloses that a pressure/counter roller can be either non-resilient, or be resilient in that it is a steel roll covered with felt (column 4, lines 41-46). It has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.07. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a steel roller covered in felt as the second counter roller of Agosti because it is recognized in the art as being suitable for the intended purpose of being a counter roller.
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agosti in view of Wening et al. (US 20140174306) and Gosnell et al. (US 20150217550). Regarding claim 2, Agosti discloses all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, including “further comprising a delaminating means (paragraph 147) provided along the conveying trajectory at a position between the laminating means and the foil retriever,” but fails to disclose “said delaminating means comprising a blade positioned to, in use, contact the elongate sheet of foil from a direction opposite the leather product so as to impart an acute peel-off angle (α) for detaching the embossed leather product.” Wening et al. disclose using a peeling edge to separate a layer from a carrier (Figure 3, paragraph 79). It has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.07. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a peeling blade/edge instead of a roller because it has been shown in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose. Gosnell et al. teach that acute angles of peel concentrates the stress to a smaller region, allowing for better removal (paragraph 120). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set the peel angle to be less than 90° in order to have a better removal. Regarding claim 3, Wening et al. further disclose “wherein the delaminating means comprises one or more guiding rollers (see the roller between the blade 35 and the roller 12 in Figure 3), whereby the one or more guiding rollers and/or the blade are positionable relative to each other so as to adjust the peel-off angle.” Regarding claim 15, Agosti further discloses “comprising a output conveyor (item 131) configured to receive an embossed leather product from the delamination means and for in-line conveying said embossed leather product to a subsequent processing station such as a curing station.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Agosti fails to teach a module that is structurally and functionally separable from a leather upgrading line is not persuasive. All of the structurally required elements of the claims are met by Agosti, as discussed supra. Additionally, the elements of Agosti are more than capable of being separated from a leather upgrading line.
Applicant’s argument that there is no upstream unit in Agosti is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that there be an upstream unit) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Regardless, Agosti clearly receives, from components which are upstream, a leather product having a partially cured layer (see Figure 1).
Applicant’s argument that Agosti’s foil is not the conveying web is not persuasive. First of all, Applicant’s own drawings show that the foil is located on top of the leather (see, e.g., Figures 1A and 1B). Agosti shows the exact same configuration (see Figure 1). Thus, if Applicant’s configuration results in the foil acting as the conveying web, then the configuration of Agosti must also result in the foil acting as the conveying web.
Applicant’s argument that Agosti does not teach allowing the protective foil to remain in place after embossing is clearly erroneous. Figure 1 clearly shows that the foil remains as part of the laminate from the rollers 19 through the rollers 20 until the separation means 50. Applicant also states that “Agosti removes the foil right after embossing”, seemingly suggesting that Applicant does not remove the foil right after embossing. However, as clearly shown in Applicant’s Figures 1A and 1B, the foil is removed immediately after embossing. Therefore, Examiner fails to see any difference between the claimed invention and that of Agosti.
In response to applicant's argument that the teachings of Blakey are not combinable with Agosti is not persuasive. Blakey is used for showing that a pressure/counter roller can be either non-resilient or be a resilient felt covered steel roller. As admitted by Applicant, Blakey discloses a felt coating to withstand high pressures. Agosti teaches that pressures can be as high as 80 atm (paragraph 42), which is certainly considered a high pressure. Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.07. Therefore, Examiner maintains that one having ordinary skill in the art would look to felt covered pressure rollers because they have been shown to be useful as pressure rollers in high pressure environments.
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 JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights