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 § 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.
Claim 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Namura et al. (US 2021/0230345).
Regarding claims 1 and 7-9, Namura teaches a laminate for forming a synthetic leather (Namura para 71-73, 75) comprising a thermoplastic resin layer, which may be polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (Namura para 76-78), with a coating of a polyurethane resin (A) having a non-ionic group of ethylene oxide (i.e. an oxyethylene structure) (Namura para 28), a water (B) (Namura para 64), and an epoxy crosslinking agent (Namura para 69-70).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namura et al. (US 2021/0230345), as applied to claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 6, Namura teaches a synthetic leather with an epoxy component as above for claim 1. Namura further teaches that the epoxy crosslinking agent may be included in an amount of 1.0-7.5 parts by mass (parts by weight or wt%) relative to the total amount of polyurethane. One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the wt% taught by Namura overlaps with the instantly claimed wt% and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 2-5 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namura et al. (US 2021/0230345), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Murahara et al. (US 2016/0289890).
Regarding claims 2-5 and 10-20, Namura teaches a synthetic leather with an epoxy component as above for claim 1. Namura further teaches that the epoxy crosslinking agent may be included in an amount of 1.0-7.5 parts by mass (parts by weight or wt%) relative to the total amount of polyurethane. One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the wt% taught by Namura overlaps with the instantly claimed wt% and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Namura is silent with respect to the epoxy (c) having a number average molecular weight of 200-1500, a number of functional groups from 2-6, no aromatic ring, and a chlorine content of 9% by mass or lower.
Namura and Murahara are related in the field of synthetic leathers formed from polyurethanes using epoxies as a cross-linking agent. Murahara teaches the use of resorcinol diglycidyl ether, neopentyl glycol diglycidyl ether, 1,6-hexanediol diglycidyl ether, glycerol polyglycidyl ether, hydrogenated bisphenol A diglycidyl ether, trimethylolpropane polyglycidyl ether, pentaerythritol polyglycidyl ether, and polypropylene glycol diglycidyl ether (Murahara para 129, 137), all of which are the same as utilized by Applicant, for example at paragraph 40 of the As-Filed application. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select one of these epoxies as taught by Murahara for the epoxy of Namura because the epoxies of Murahara are known effective cross-linking agents for polyurethane in the field of synthetic leathers.
Further, as these epoxies are the same as utilized by Applicant, they would be expected to possess the same features and properties as claimed, such the number average molecular weight being 200-1500, a number of functional groups from 2-6, no aromatic rings, and chlorine content of 9% by mass or lower. 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), see MPEP 2112.01.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/LAURA B FIGG/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 1/7/26