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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 6/8/26, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
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 Objections
Claims 3 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: “an interval between the micro recess parts” should be changed to “an average interval between centers of the micro recess parts” for the purposes of clarity and consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Sano teaches a synthetic resin leather (e.g., a skin material with a substrate and a polymeric layer) comprising a base material (e.g., substrate); and a skin layer (e.g., skin material) that is stacked on the base material and is made of a synthetic resin (e.g., acrylic paint or resin), wherein multiple micro recess parts are intermittently and regularly formed on a surface of the skin layer, and the multiple micro recess parts form multiple bottom face parts that are located at a substantially constant depth from the surface of the skin layer, and multiple inner side face parts that extend from the surface of the skin layer to the multiple bottom face parts; wherein the multiple micro recess parts are formed in a hemispherical shape with a curved bottom face part (e.g., substantially circular); wherein a depth from the surface to the bottom face parts is smaller than a thickness of the skin layer (abstract; para 24-29; fig 2).
Regarding the limitation “an average interval between centers of the micro recess parts which are adjacent is from 180 µm to 310 µm;” Sano teaches that the fine recesses have a maximum diameter of 90 to 130 µm and a pitch (i.e., interval between the micro recess parts) of 50 to 300 µm (para 27), i.e., an average interval between centers of the micro recess parts of 95 to 365 µm. This range substantially overlaps that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Sano, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding the limitation “wherein some inner side face parts are configured to be elastically deformed due to the contact with a hand and/or finger, and when the hand and/or finger is moved away, the inner side face parts moves return to the original shapes;” Sano teaches or otherwise would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention the method of manufacture and structure of the synthetic resin leather of the instant claims. Sano further teaches the skin layer is made of acrylic paint, i.e., an acrylic resin which matches the composition of the skin layer specified for that of the skin layer required to achieve the property or functionality (see instant spec page 5, lines 9-15). Therefore the synthetic resin leather of Sano is deemed to possess the forementioned property or functionality.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Regarding claim 6, Sano teaches a method for manufacturing synthetic resin leather (e.g., a skin material with a substrate and a polymeric layer), comprising a stacking process (e.g., adhering) for forming a skin layer (e.g., skin material) made of a synthetic resin (e.g., acrylic paint or resin) on a base material (e.g., substrate); and an embossing process (e.g., embossed) for intermittently and regularly forming multiple micro recess parts over an entire surface of the skin layer, wherein, in the embossing process, multiple bottom face parts that are located at a substantially constant depth from the surface of the skin layer, and multiple inner side face parts that extend from the surface of the skin layer to the multiple bottom face parts are embossed to form the multiple micro recess parts; wherein the multiple micro recess parts are formed in a hemispherical shape with a curved bottom face part (e.g., substantially circular) (abstract; para 24-29; fig 2).
Regarding the limitation “an average interval between centers of the micro recess parts which are adjacent is from 180 µm to 310 µm;” Sano teaches that the fine recesses have a maximum diameter of 90 to 130 µm and a pitch (i.e., interval between the micro recess parts) of 50 to 300 µm (para 27), i.e., an average interval between centers of the micro recess parts of 95 to 365 µm. This range substantially overlaps that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Sano, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding the limitation “wherein some inner side face parts are configured to be elastically deformed due to the contact with a hand and/or finger, and when the hand and/or finger is moved away, the inner side face parts moves return to the original shapes;” Sano teaches or otherwise would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention the method of manufacture and structure of the synthetic resin leather of the instant claims. Sano further teaches the skin layer is made of acrylic paint, i.e., an acrylic resin which matches the composition of the skin layer specified for that of the skin layer required to achieve the property or functionality (see instant spec page 5, lines 9-15). Therefore the synthetic resin leather of Sano is deemed to possess the forementioned property or functionality.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to change the shape of multiple micro recess to that of having a flat bottom face part, since changes in shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.04 IV B).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Sano teaches that the fine recesses have a maximum diameter of 90 to 130 µm, a depth of 50 to 110 µm, and a pitch (i.e., interval between the micro recess parts) of 50 to 300 µm (para 27), i.e., an average interval between centers of the micro recess parts of 95 to 365 µm (para 27); so based on a unit of 20 µm, Sano would have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention wherein an average ratio between an inner diameter of each of the multiple micro recess parts on the surface of the skin layer, a depth of the micro recess parts from the surface to the bottom face parts, and an interval between the centers of the micro recess parts is 4.5 to 6.5 : 2.5 to 5.5 : 4.75 to 18.25, and the interval is larger than the inner diameter.
These ranges for the average ratio substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Sano, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Schaefer (US 2010/0263235 A1).
Sano teaches the synthetic resin leather according to claim 1 and method for manufacturing synthetic resin leather according to claim 6.
Sano fails to suggest wherein multiple ultramicro convex parts are formed to provide a sandy texture on a portion of the surface of the skin layer other than the micro recess parts, and an average height of the multiple ultramicro convex parts is smaller than the depths of the multiple micro recess parts.
Shaefer teaches a coated leather comprising a base material (e.g., leather); and a skin layer (4) that is stacked on the base material and is made of a synthetic resin capable of being elastically deformed (e.g., polyurethane), wherein multiple micro recess parts (e.g., microindentations) are intermittently and regularly formed on a surface of the skin layer, and the multiple micro recess parts form multiple bottom face parts that are located at a substantially constant depth from the surface of the skin layer, and multiple inner side face parts that extend from the surface of the skin layer to the multiple bottom face parts and are capable of being elastically deformed; wherein multiple ultramicro convex parts (431) (e.g., narrow surfaces) are formed to provide a sandy texture (e.g., nubuck) on a portion of the surface of the skin layer other than the micro recess parts, and an average height of the multiple ultramicro convex parts is smaller than the depths of the multiple micro recess parts; wherein the narrow surfaces are matte to extremely micro-fibrous soft and flexible and impart the typical nubuck grip and the nubuck-like appearance (para 136-142; fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to form the narrow surfaces of the coated leathers of Shaefer on a portion of the surface of the skin layer other than the micro recess parts of Sano for a skin material with a surface that is matte to extremely micro-fibrous soft and flexible and with a typical nubuck grip and nubuck-like appearance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Sano fails to suggest "wherein some inner side face parts are configured to be elastically deformed due to the contact with a hand and/or finger, and when the hand and/or finger is moved away, the inner side face parts moves return to the original shapes, and an average interval between centers of the micro recess parts which are adjacent is from 180 µm to 310 µm, and the multiple micro recess parts are formed with a flat bottom face part or a curved bottom face part."
This is not persuasive. Sano teaches the multiple micro recess parts are formed in a hemispherical shape with a curved bottom face part (e.g., substantially circular) (para 24; fig 2).
Regarding the limitation “an average interval between centers of the micro recess parts which are adjacent is from 180 µm to 310 µm;” Sano teaches that the fine recesses have a maximum diameter of 90 to 130 µm and a pitch (i.e., interval between the micro recess parts) of 50 to 300 µm (para 27), i.e., an average interval between centers of the micro recess parts of 95 to 365 µm. This range substantially overlaps that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Sano, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding the limitation “wherein some inner side face parts are configured to be elastically deformed due to the contact with a hand and/or finger, and when the hand and/or finger is moved away, the inner side face parts moves return to the original shapes;” Sano teaches or otherwise would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention the method of manufacture and structure of the synthetic resin leather of the instant claims. Sano further teaches the skin layer is made of acrylic paint, i.e., an acrylic resin which matches the composition of the skin layer specified for that of the skin layer required to achieve the property or functionality (see instant spec page 5, lines 9-15). Therefore the synthetic resin leather of Sano is deemed to possess the forementioned property or functionality.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (MPEP § 2112.01 I).
In addition, Sano teaches that the fine recesses have a maximum diameter of 90 to 130 µm, a depth of 50 to 110 µm, and a pitch (i.e., interval between the micro recess parts) of 50 to 300 µm (para 27), i.e., an average interval between centers of the micro recess parts of 95 to 365 µm (para 27); so based on a unit of 20 µm, Sano would have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention wherein an average ratio between an inner diameter of each of the multiple micro recess parts on the surface of the skin layer, a depth of the micro recess parts from the surface to the bottom face parts, and an interval between the centers of the micro recess parts is 4.5 to 6.5 : 2.5 to 5.5 : 4.75 to 18.25, and the interval is larger than the inner diameter.
These ranges for the average ratio substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Sano, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
In response to applicant's argument that the embodiments of the instant claims possess the property or function of “wherein some inner side face parts are configured to be elastically deformed due to the contact with a hand and/or finger, and when the hand and/or finger is moved away, the inner side face parts moves return to the original shapes,” the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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 NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights