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
1. 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.
2. Claim(s) 1-5, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102018113941 A1.
With regard to claims 1 and 9, the published DE document 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). 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 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 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 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).
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.
3. Claim(s) is/are 3, 6, 7, 8 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102018113941 A1 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of DE 102019215873 A1.
The published DE document 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 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.
The published DE document further teach that the coating is adhesive and comprises from 10-20 wt. of raw renewable materials (see description). Specifically, 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 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.
Conclusion
4. 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