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 .
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1, 3, 8, 19, & 26, the cancellation of claims 4 – 7, 11 – 13, 15, 21, 23 – 25, 29, & 31. Claims 26 – 28 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1 – 3, 8 – 10, 14, 16 – 20, 22, 25, & 30 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As a note, claim 8 does not explicitly recite a non-aqueous solvent coating. Therefore, the recited solvent-free coating layer is inherently a non-aqueous coating layer.
Second, even though it is understood Applicant intended to recite the polyurethane layer is an aqueous coating, a non-aqueous solvent coating, or a solvent-free coating, these are the only three states in which a polyurethane layer can possibly exist before any optional solvent is dried (removed). Applicant recites the term “coating” as a noun, not a verb. Therefore, the term “coating” is not a product-by-process limitation. As such, claim 8 fails to further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 14, 16, & 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chee et al. (US 2012/0108134 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Chee et al. teach an artificial leather comprising:
A bottom fabric layer (i.e., “substrate”), a foam layer or middle foam layer comprising a foaming agent, propylene/α-olefin copolymer (i.e., “first polyolefin elastomer”) (paragraph [0049]), a top skin layer (i.e., “modification layer”) comprising propylene/α-olefin copolymer (“second polyolefin elastomer”) (paragraph [0043]), and a top coating layer of polyurethane (Fig. 1D & paragraph [0032]).
PNG
media_image1.png
334
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Chee et al. teach the top skin layer (i.e., “modification layer”) comprises 20 – 90% polypropylene/α-olefin copolymer (i.e., “second polyolefin elastomer”) and other polymers, such as an ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymer, present in the amount of 10 – 90 wt.% (paragraphs [0044] – [0046]). As such, Chee et al. teach Applicant’s claimed 100 parts by weight second polyolefin elastomer and 0.01 – 10 wt% additives, such as tackifiers (paragraph [0077]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Chee et al. teach the top skin layer and/or the middle foam layer may contain cross linking co-agents (i.e., “cross-linked”) (paragraph [0077]), but do teach the cross-linking is achieved by radiation cross-linking.
Furthermore, Chee et al. do not teach the polyurethane top coating is applied in solution form.
Claim 1 defines the product by how the product was made (i.e., crosslinked by radiation and a coating applied as a solution). Thus, claim 1 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having cross-linked polymer. The reference suggests such a product.
Examiner refers applicant to MPEP § 2113 [R - 1] regarding product-by-process claims. “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method or production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product or the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777, F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citation omitted)
Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to the Applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218, USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
With regards to claim 3, Chee et al. teach the foam layer comprises 30 – 90 wt.% propylene/alpha-olefin copolymer (i.e., “first polyolefin elastomer”), 10 – 70 wt.% block copolymer (i.e., “first rubber elastomer”) (paragraphs [0050] – [0051]), 0.1 – 30 phr blowing agent (paragraph [0052]), 0 – 60 wt.% filler (paragraph [0054]), and additives present in the amount of 0 – 10 wt.% (paragraph [0053]), and 0.01 wt% - 10 wt.% of additive, such as cross linking co-agent (paragraph [0077]).
With regards to claim 14, as discussed above for claim 1, Chee et al. teach the substrate layer is fabric.
With regards to claim 16, Chee et al. teach the thickness of the total structure (i.e. “artificial leather”) is typically 0.1 – 6 mm, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 0.21 – 13.1 mm. The thickness of the bottom fabric layer (i.e., “substrate”) is 0.5 – 3 mm (paragraph [0029]), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 0.1 mm to 6.0 mm. The thickness of the foam layer is typically 0.05 – 3 mm and the thickness of the top skin layer is typically 0.05 – 3 mm, for a total of 0.1 – 6 mm, which is within Applicant’s claimed thickness range of the 0.1 mm to 7.0 mm for the polyolefin elastomer composite layer. Chee et al. teach the optional polyurethane top coating layer typically has a thickness of 0.1 – 100 microns (0.001 mm – 0.1 mm) (paragraph [0030]), which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 0.01 – 0.1 mm. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
With regards to claim 30, Chee et al. teach the styrenic block copolymer of the foam (i.e., “the first rubber elastomer”) is a hydrogenated styrenic block copolymer of polystyrene-saturated polybutadiene-polystyrene (“hydrogenated styrene-butadiene-styrene block copolymer”) or polystyrene-saturated polyisoproprene-polystyrene (“hydrogenated styrene-isoprene-styrene block copolymer”) (paragraphs [0062] – [0064]).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chee et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bocks et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,029,534).
With regards to claim 2, Chee et al. do not explicitly teach the degree of cross-linking in the foam layer.
Bocks et al. teach a composite material, preferably for use in artificial leather (Examples 6 – 7 & 9), comprising a polyurethane foam layer (Col. 1, Lines 7 – 11). The desired water resistance and swelling of the foam layer can be achieved by using a sufficient amount of crosslinking agent and/or increasing the degree of crosslinking (Col. 4, Lines 48 – 56).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Bocks et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the degree of crosslinking in the foam layer taught by Chee et al. through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired water resistance and swelling of said foam layer for use in artificial leather. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chee et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thoma et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,598,120 A).
With regards to claim 8, Chee et al. do not teach the method of depositing the polyurethane coating, and therefore, does not explicitly teach the polyurethane resin solution layer (coating) is solvent-borne, aqueous or solvent-free.
With regard to claim 9, Chee et al. do not teach the polyurethane coating has raw material components including, by weight, 100 parts of a polyurethane resin solution; 1 part to 10 parts of silicone; and 0.2 parts to 2.2 parts of a second cross-linking aid; and a second additive, wherein the second additive comprises a chain extender, a thickener, a film-forming agent, a slip agent, a wetting agent, or a combination thereof.
Thoma et al. teach an aqueous dispersion for coating artificial leather (Col. 2, Lines 5 – 10), wherein the aqueous dispersion comprises a ratio of on aqueous dispersion of polyurethane (Aa) and poly(meth)acrylate (Ab) to silicone (C) is from amounts between 100:5 and 100:200 (i.e., 100 parts polyurethane resin and 5 – 200 parts silicone) (Col. 3, Lines 28 – 33), wherein the amount of poly(meth)acrylate may be zero (Col. 2, Lines 62 – 66), and as such, the silicone content overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 1 – 10 parts silicone. Furthermore, the aqueous dispersion comprises crosslinking agents (D) for polyurethanes in the amount of 0.5 -10% by weight, preferably 1- 10% by weight (Col. 4, Lines 28 – 33), and an aqueous thickener solution (b) in a quantity of about 1 – 10% by weight, preferably 3 – 5% by weight, each of which are based on the sum of the aqueous dispersions (A) (Col. 4, Lines 1 – 4). As such, the dispersion comprising about 0.5 – 10 parts by weight of crosslinking agent (aid), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 0.2 – 2.2 parts. The working examples also teach the presence of chain extenders, such as ethylene diamine. The composition of this aqueous dispersion is beneficial for increasing resistance to swelling by organic solvents during dry cleaning and improved resistance to washing (Col. 2, Lines 14 – 35).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Thoma et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the top layer of polyurethane coating taught by Chee et al. with the aqueous dispersion taught by Thoma et al. for providing the artificial leather with improved resistance to swelling during dry cleaning and improved resistance to washing. With regard to the overlapping ranges taught by Thoma et al., as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chee et al. & Thoma et al., as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Shikada (U.S. Patent No. 3,772,059 A).
With regards to claim 10, Thoma et al. teach working examples of the polyurethane resin solution obtained by polymerization reaction of diisocyanate (“polyisocyanate”) and a mixed polyester of 1,6-hexane diol, neopentyl glycol, and adipic acid (i.e., “polyol”) (PUR dispersion P-1). Thoma et al. do not explicitly teach the polyol (ester) having a hydroxyl group as a terminal group, and wherein the hydroxyl group on the terminal group of the polyol is attached with carbon atoms of more than 6.
Shikada teaches an artificial leather (Col. 1, Lines 4 – 10) comprising a coating solution of polyurethane elastomer to be used comprises an organic diisocyanate and a polyalkylene ether glycol or polyester having terminal hydroxy groups are reacted with each other to produce a prepolymer and the prepolymer is subjected to a chain-extending reaction with a chain-extender such as diol or polyol to form a linear polyurethane elastomer (Col. 3, Lines 39 – 47). Exemplary polyols include glycols, which contain at least 6 carbon atoms attached to the hydroxyl terminal groups (Col. 3, Lines 59 – 68). The coating forms a film that is tough, light, and remarkably excellent in abrasion resistance, impact resistance, softness and moisture permeability for use as artificial leather (Col. 8, Lines 21 – 33).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Shikada, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use a polyester polyol comprising at least six carbon atoms attached to terminal hydroxyl groups for reacting with polyisocyanate to form a polyurethane elastomer of a coating that provides desired properties, such as abrasion resistance, impact resistance, and softness for use as artificial leather.
Claim(s) 17 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chee et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jiang et al. (US 2004/0127614 A1).
With regard to claims 17 & 19, Cheer et al. do not teach adhesive is a polyolefin elastomer bonding layer, wherein the polyolefin elastomer bonding layer has raw material components including, by weight: 0 – 100 parts of a third polyolefin elastomer; 0 – 100 parts of a graft-modified polyolefin elastomer, wherein a sum of parts by weight of the third polyolefin elastomer and parts by weight of the graft-modified polyolefin elastomer is 100 parts; 0.5 – 40 parts of a second tackifying resin; 1 – 10 parts of a third cross-linking aid; and a second filler.
Jiang et al. teach a polyolefin adhesive composition comprising at least 50% polymer (paragraphs [0555]), specifically polyolefin copolymers, such as elastomers of ethylene propylene rubber or ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber (elastomer) (paragraphs [0031], [0456], [0460], [0573]), about 1% to about 40 wt% tackifiers (paragraph [0444]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 0.5 – 40 parts of a second tackifying resin, 30% by weight or less of one or more additives, such as crosslinking agents (paragraph [0363]), which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 1 – 10 parts of a third cross-linking aid, and fillers (paragraphs [0450] & [0533]). Furthermore, Jiang et al. indicates that the polyolefin polymer types may include at least partially grafted polyolefin (paragraph [0163]). The adhesives may be applied to substrates such as non-wovens (fabrics) (paragraph [0489]) used in disposable articles, fabrics, garments, bookbinding (paragraphs [0488], [0528] – [0529]). The adhesive composition described above balances different desired properties, such as mechanical strength & flexibility, and may be tailored for a variety of end uses (paragraphs [0004] – [0008]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Jiang et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use the polyolefin elastomer composition taught by Jiang et al. for the adhesive composition taught by Chee et al. for achieving an adhesive layer joined to fabric for a variety of uses, such as bookbinding or garments, with the desired mechanical strength and flexibility.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Jiang et al. do not teach the crosslinking is achieved via radiation.
However, claim 17 defines the product by how the product was made (i.e., crosslinking via radiation). Thus, claim 17 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply an adhesive (bonding) layer comprising crosslinked polyolefin elastomer. The reference suggests such a product.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chee et al. & Jiang et al., as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Vitek (U.S. Patent No. 4,091,195 A).
With regards to claim 18, Chee et al. do not teach the polyolefin elastomer bonding layer has a cross-linked degree of 1% to 90%.
Vitek teaches a hot-melt adhesive, such as adhesive composed of copolymers ethylene and/or polypropylene (i.e., “polyolefin elastomer”) (Col. 1, Line 61 – Col. 2, Line 2). The adhesive has degree of crosslinking in the range 0.1 – 10% for desired stress resistance and adhesive properties (Col. 3, Lines 11 – 28).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Vitek, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the polyolefin elastomer bonding layer taught by Chee et al. with a degree of crosslinking in the range of 0.1 – 10%, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 1 – 90%, in order to achieve a polyolefin elastomer adhesive with desired adhesive and stress resistance properties. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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).
Claim(s) 20 & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chee et al. & Jiang et al., as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (EP 0784089 A1).
With regards to claim 20, Jiang et al. do not teach the graft-modified polyolefin elastomer is grafted with a (meth)acrylate salt.
Tanaka et al. teach an adhesive composition for laminating ethylene-based or polyamide-based films, wherein the adhesive composition comprises unmodified ethylene/alpha-olefin copolymer (“polyolefin elastomer”) resin grafted with (meth)acrylate salt(s), such as sodium acrylate, sodium methacrylate, potassium acrylate, potassium methacrylate, and/or maleic anhydride (pg. 4, Line 45 – pg. 5, line 4). The adhesion composition has high heat-sealing strength, heat resistance, and interlaminar (adhesion) strength after a stretching operation (pg. 2, Lines 12 – 46).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Tanaka et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to graft the graft-modified polyolefin elastomer taught by Jiang et al. with a (meth)acrylate salt because the composition including said (meth)acrylate salt improves high heat-sealing strength, heat resistance, and adhesion strength.
With regards to claim 22, Jiang et al. teach modifying (grafting) the polyolefin resin with maleic anhydride (paragraph [0530]).
Claim(s) 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chee et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mück et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,190,694).
With regards to claim 25, Chee et al. do not teach the artificial leather has a cross-linking degree of 20% to 90%.
Mück et al. teach an artificial leather comprising at least two elastomer layers (Col. 4, Lines 52 – 56), wherein varying the degree of cross-linking in the individual layers of the artificial leather provides for ideal scattering of the various components of the forces induced during long-term slow bending or under repeated fast bending or flexing of the artificial leather in production and in use (Col. 7, Lines 48 – 56). The variation of the degree of cross-linking is achieved by changing the composition of the mixture containing a prepolymer or a hardening agent (Col. 8, Lines 33 – 37).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Mück et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the degree of cross-linking in each of the elastomer layers of the artificial leather (and thus the degree of cross-linking throughout the entire artificial leather product) through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired long-term slow bending or fast bending desirable for use of the artificial leather. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “Paragraph 0171 of the description is amended by correcting polyhexanediol as PEG200. Support can be found for this amendment at least at Table 1 of the Chinese Application No. 20210774656.9 (published CN115595049), from which this application claims priority” (Remarks, Pg. 8).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant’s amendment of the specification filed 6/22/2026 has not been entered for the following reasons:
First, an amendment of the specification based on Applicant’s alleged support in a foreign priority document requires perfecting claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) – (d) (i.e., an official translation of the foreign priority document to be submitted). See MPEP 216.01 & 35 U.S.C. § 119. Applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a) – (d) has not been perfected. Therefore, the amendment has not been entered.
Second, Applicant’s asserted amendment of paragraph [00171] filed 6/22/2026 lacks similarity to paragraph [00171] of the original specification. Original paragraph [00171] is shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
458
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
There are numerous differences between original paragraph [00171] and Applicant’s marked-up amendment of paragraph [00171] filed 6/22/2026 that are not shown. For example:
(1) “polyurethane slurry” was changed to “slurry for the polyurethane layer”,
(2) hexamethylene diisocyanate (BASF, BASONTA®HI 100AP)” was changed to “toluene cyclohexane-1,4-diisocyanate (Hubei Jinleda Chemical Co., Ltd., CHDI)”,
(3) “diethylene glycol hexyl ether (Dow Chemical, HECB” was changed to “polyhexanediol” to “PEG200.”
(4) “polysiloxanes monocapped with epoxy groups” was changed to “modified polysiloxane.”
These differences suggest Applicant intended to amend a completely different paragraph of the originally filed specification. Original paragraph [00177] appears to align with the original paragraph of Applicant’s amendment of the specification filed 6/22/2026.
Applicant argues, “…Applicant has deleted the ‘preferably’ phrases from Claims 1, 3, 19, and 26 (see amended claims filed herewith). The indefiniteness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) based on that term is therefore moot” (Remarks, Pg. 9).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of the cancellation of claims 1, 3, 19, and 26, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “…the entire polyolefin elastomer composite layer – both the modification layer and the foamed layer – is radiation cross-linked.
“With the amendment and the above explanation, the scope of Claim 1 is clear and definite. The rejection under §112(b) is therefore moot” (Remarks, Pg. 9).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of the cancellation of claim 1, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “Within the Office Action, it is noted that original Claim 31 depends from claim 4, but claim 4 has been cancelled, leaving claim 31 without proper antecedent basis.
“Accordingly, the Applicant has cancelled original Claim 31. The substantive feature of the claim – i.e., ‘trinary ethylene propylene rubber’ – has been incorporated into the independent Claim 1 (see amended Claim 1). Accordingly, the rejection associated with Claim 31 is moot” (Remarks, Pg. 10).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: In light of the cancellation of claims 4 & 31, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues, “…Applicant has amended by Claim 1 to replace ‘polyurethan resin solution layer’ with ‘polyurethane layer’ (amendment supported by the Present Specification, at least at paragraph [0007]). Claim 8 has also been amended to read: ‘the polyurethane layer is an aqueous, non-aqueous, or solvent-free polyurethane coating.’ This amendment eliminates the internal inconsistency and the rejection associated with Claim 8 is moot” (Remarks, Pg. 10).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendment of claim 8 only addressed one of the two issues previously discussed in the rejection. See rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) discussed above.
Applicant argues, “However, Chee fails to disclose, for example, trinary ethylene propylene rubber (EPDM) as the second rubber elastomer modification layer, as now required by claim 1. Moreover, Chee does not reach, suggest, or motivate, for example, using EPDM – which contains pendant unsaturated double bonds from its diene termonomer – as a rubber component that can be radiation cross-linked without an additional cross-linking agent. These missing features are not rendered obvious by any other cited reference” (Remarks, Pgs. 11 – 12).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, claim 1 recites “…the modification layer has raw material components including, by weight, … 0 parts to 100 parts of a second rubber elastomer … wherein the second rubber elastomer is trinary ethylene propylene rubber.” In other words, claim 1 recites a modification layer comprising 0 parts trinary ethylene propylene rubber. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, claim 1 does not require the presence of trinary ethylene propylene rubber (EPDM) (i.e., “second rubber elastomer”).
Second, Applicant’s claim 1 does not recite a modification layer without additional cross-linking agent. 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., cross-linking without additional cross-linking agent) 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).
Applicant argues, “None of the additional references – Bocks, Thoma, Shikada, Jiang, Vitek, Tanaka, or Muck – discloses or suggests using EPDM as the second rubber elastomer in a polyolefin elastomer composite layer that is radiation cross-linked, let alone in an artificial leather having the specific layered structure of the independent Claim 1” (Remarks, Pg. 12).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant is directed to the discussion above.
Conclusion
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 NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights