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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 4/11/23. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2023-064072 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “capable of being elastically deformed” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The “capable of being elastically deformed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It would have been unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art the metric required or standard required for the synthetic resin and/or multiple micro recess parts to be considered “capable of being elastically deformed.”
Claims 2-5 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
The phrase “capable of being elastically deformed” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The “capable of being elastically deformed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It would have been unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art the metric required or standard required for the synthetic resin and/or multiple micro recess parts to be considered “capable of being elastically deformed.”
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 6.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sano et al (US 2008/0305305 A1).
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 capable of being elastically deformed (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 and are capable of being elastically deformed; wherein the multiple micro recess parts are formed in a hemispherical shape with the multiple bottom face parts being curved; 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 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) capable of being elastically deformed 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 and are capable of being elastically deformed are embossed to form the multiple micro recess parts (abstract; para 24-29; fig 2).
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 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano.
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); 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 micro recess parts is 4.5 to 6.5 : 2.5 to 5.5 : 2.5 to 15, and the interval is larger than the inner diameter.
Furthermore, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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