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 § 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.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi (JP2016010912 (A)) as understood from the provided translation of the reference, in view of Weisman (US 3499848).
With respect to claim 6, Hiroshi discloses a laminated body obtained by layering and integrating a flexible surface member on and with a soft polyurethane foam (abstr., 0010-0014, 0017), wherein the soft polyurethane foam and the surface member are bonded by a moisture-curable hot melt adhesive (0014, 0015, 0019). Hiroshi does not state explicitly that the laminated body is an irregularly shaped laminated body, and the soft polyurethane foam and the surface member are irregularly shaped. Hiroshi does disclose that the laminated body is used in seats and interior materials of vehicles (0027). Weisman discloses a laminated body comprising a flexible surface member and polyurethane foam, wherein the laminated body is irregularly shaped and the polyurethane foam and the flexible surface member are irregularly shaped (col. 1, lines 30-35, col. 3, lines 22-41, col. 6, lines 42-69, Fig. 3), wherein the laminate is used in automotive industry and furniture, providing shock absorbing and insulating qualities (col. 6, lines 62-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the laminated body of Hiroshi as a irregularly shaped laminated body wherein the soft polyurethane foam and the surface member are irregularly shaped since the laminates of Weisman can be used in upholstering as do the laminates of Hiroshi, laminates of Weisman providing shock absorbance and insulating qualities.
Regarding claim 7, Hiroshi and Weisman teach the laminated body according to claim 6. Weisman discloses shaping of the polyurethane foam and the surface member performed by thermal compression (col. 6, lines 33-41). Furthermore, the claim defines the product by how the product is made, thus, claim 7 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 (MPEP 2113). In the instant case the recited steps imply the structure of claim 7. The references teach the structure.
As to claim 9, Hiroshi and Weisman teach the laminated body of claim 6. Hiroshi discloses a back surface member – element 15 - layered with the soft polyurethane foam (abstr., 0013, 0034). Weisman discloses a recess and a protrusion being present at the same position in a lamination direction in the surface member and the back surface member (Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on Feb. 13, 2026 have been fully considered.
In view of the recent amendment 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 7 and 9 have been withdrawn.
The Applicant argued that par. [0006] of Hiroshi discloses that applying heat impairs the inherent design qualities of natural leather, while Weisman discloses a technique for softening materials using dielectric heating to perform heat-sealing and embossing, thus, a person skilled in the art would have no motivation to combine these references. The Examiner notes Hiroshi in par. [0006] discloses that “heat is applied directly to the natural leather. The natural grains (fine irregularities) on the original surface of leather are stretched by heat and become flat.” Weisman uses dielectric heating wherein there is no direct application of heat to the flexible surface member. Regarding embossing, Hiroshi uses compression (0041) which corresponds to the pressure applied in Weisman.
The Applicant argued that even if the references were combined they would not provide the subject matter of claim 6 as Hiroshi relates to a surface material having the texture of natural leather and a method of manufacturing it, so it does not teach the configuration of claim 6, wherein “the soft polyurethane foam and the surface member are irregularly shaped.” The Examiner notes it is the combination of Hiroshi and Weisman that provides the subject matter of claim 6. Hiroshi discloses a laminated body comprising a flexible surface member integrated with a soft polyurethane foam, while Weisman teaches a laminated body which is irregularly shaped, wherein the polyurethane foam and the flexible surface member are irregularly shaped, as discussed 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 JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights