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
1. Applicant’s amendment and accompanying remarks filed 4/28/26 have been fully considered and entered. Claims 1, 7 and 8 have been amended. Claims 11-13 have been added. Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are found sufficient to overcome the obviousness type rejections of claims 1-5, 7 and 9 made over the cited prior art of DE 102018113941 A1. Specifically, the cited prior art fails to teach the claimed expansion of the particles and/or the partial rupture of the particles. As such, these rejections are hereby withdrawn. However, the following new ground of obviousness type rejection of claims 1-5, 7 and 9 is made over the cited combination of DE 102018113941 A1 further in view of DE 102019215873 A1. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive to overcome the rejections of claims 3, 6, 7, 8 and 10 made over the cited combination of DE 102018113941 A1 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of DE 102019215873 A1 for reasons set forth below. Applicant’s amendments also raise 112 2nd paragraph indefinite rejections with respect to claims 1 and newly added claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-6 and 9-13 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.
4. With specific regard to claim 1 it is not clear how the particles are “partially” ruptured on the surface of the overlay. It is not clear to the Examiner if the Applicants “load” the particles with a “sufficient” amount of water to cause expansion or rupture or both? With regard to the term “sufficient”, the term “sufficient” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient” 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. Since it is not clear if the particles are “loaded” with enough water to just cause expansion or with enough water to cause rupture it is not clear what amount of water is considered “sufficient”. The Examiner interprets “loaded” with water to mean that that particles comprise water. Applicants have not limited how the particles are loaded with water (e.g., chemically bound). Claims 2-6 and 9-13 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
5. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the polymer matrix" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102018113941 A1 in view of DE 102019215873 A1.
With regard to claims 1, 7 and 9, the published DE document ‘941 teach coating a substrate with a composition comprising the raw renewable material such as particles of crushed coffee bean shells mixed with water (see description). The Examiner considers “mixed with water” sufficient to meet the limitation of “loaded” with water (see above interpretation). With regard to claim 13, it appears that the raw renewable material such as particles of crushed coffee bean shells are dry prior to being mixed with water. Said substrate can be paper or fabric (see description). It is the position of the Examiner that the substrate of a paper or fabric meets the limitation of the claimed “support” layer and the mixture of renewable particles (coffee bean shells) and water meets the limitation of the claimed “overlay”. With regard to the recitation of “structured artificial leather”, the Examiner is of the position that absent any further distinguishing limitations, a substrate coated with a mixture of particles of a renewable raw material (coffee bean shells) and water can function in the capacity of the claimed “structured artificial leather”. In other words, since the cited prior art meets the claimed structured and chemical limitations of the claimed “structured artificial leather” there is nothing on record to evidence that the coated substrate cannot function the claimed capacity as an “structured artificial leather”. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise.
With regard to claim 2, the published DE document ‘941 teach the claimed “coffee fruits”. The Examiner is of the position that “coffee shells” meet the claimed “coffee fruits”.
With regard to claim 3, the published DE document does not specifically teach the ratio of coffee shell particles in the coating; absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the amount of renewable raw material (coffee bean shells), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this result-effective variable by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to claim 4, the published DE document ‘941 does not specifically teach the content of the physically bound water to the renewable raw material (coffee bean shells); absent a clear and convincing showing of unexpected results demonstrating the criticality of the content water physically bound to the renewable raw material (coffee bean shells), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize this result-effective variable by routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Alternatively, water saturated raw renewable particles would comprise water that is “physically” bound.
With regard to claim 5, the published DE document teach a particle diameter ranging from .01-3mm (see claims). Such a range overlaps the claimed range of 10-100 microns
With regard to claim 7, the published DE document teach that the base substrate layer is also coated with an adhesive in combination with the mixture of the renewable raw material (coffee bean shells) and water (see claims). Said mixture is further coated with top layer such as clearcoat cover lacquer (see claims). As such, the Examiner is of the position that the structural limitations of claim 7 are met. See the above arguments regarding the amount renewable raw material in the mixture. It appears that the layered composite is used to form decorative coverings are articles.
The published DE document ‘941 is set forth above.
The published DE document does not teach the claimed amount of renewable raw material in the mixture, the claimed foam and the claimed embossing step.
The published DE document ‘873 teach a composite that can be used as imitation leather (see title and abstract). The textile materials can be natural fiber, chemical fiber or mixed textiles and in turn be coated, for example with soft PVC. This coating can be made compact or foamed, depending on the application. The Examiner considers claim 11 met. The surface can be given a grain embossing so that it also resembles leather in terms of its optical or haptic structure (see description). The Examiner is of the position that since the published DE document ‘873 teach a coating that can be foamed and the surface can be embossed the limitations of claims 6, 8 and 10 have been met. The Examiner is of the position that embossing would “rupture” the structural elements of the layered composite. Applicants are invited to prove otherwise. With regard to claim 12, the Examiner is of the position that embossing would also serve crush and unevenly distribute the structural elements across the surface. The structural elements would also differ in size and shape after embossing.
The published DE document ‘873 further teach that the coating is adhesive and comprises from 10-20 wt. of raw renewable materials (see description). The published DE document ‘873 teach the renewable raw material of the first layer being selected from one or more of the following group: wood flour, coffee fruits, corn cobs, sugar beet flour, grain stalk flour, beer grain flour (see description). The published DE document ‘873 teach an artificial leather material wherein the first layer comprises particles of a renewable raw material, in particular silver skin from coffee fruits, and the renewable raw material in an amount of at least 10% by weight, preferably at least 20% by weight (see description).
It would have been obvious to form the layered composite in published DE document ‘941 wherein the mixture of renewable raw materials is formulated as a foam layer and/or with the amount of renewable raw materials and/or embossing the surface of the layered composite for the purpose of producing a specific type of decorative material (e.g., appearing leatherlike) and/or having a desired thickness/cushioning/feel (e.g., a foam layer) and/or with a specific amount of raw renewable particles as function of desired textural/decorative appearance and/or having a specific structural property based on the teachings disclosed in published DE document ‘873.
Response to Arguments
8. With regard to claims 1-6 and 9-13, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive in view of the 112 2nd paragraph rejections set forth above. With regard to claims 7 and 8, the Examiner maintains that mixing water with the raw renewable particles effectively serves to “load” the particles with water. Applicants have not set forth further distinguishing limitations for which to consider (e.g, chemically bound water). The Examiner is of the position that when the raw renewable particles are mixed with water, the water would penetrate and/or saturate (e.g., load) the raw renewable particles causing them to expand. For these reasons, the Examiner is of the position that the combination of cited prior art renders the rejected claims obvious.
Conclusion
9. 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 LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-272-1482. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights