DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 & 16-19, in the reply filed on April 22nd, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-15 & 20-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of making, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 22nd, 2026
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 6 & 10 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.
Regarding claim 6, the term “the upper and/or lower sides” does not have sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10, the preamble is drawn to “a two-dimensional layer structure consisting of a sheet according to claim 1”, but since “a sheet” already has antecedent basis, it should state “the sheet according to claim 1” or “said sheet according to claim 1”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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, 6-10, & 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (KR 10-0437272 B1) (hereinafter “Ahn”).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-9, and 17-19, Ahn teaches a composite sheet/board/plate-shaped substrate [32] consisting of waste plastic (recycled polymers) and pulverized waste materials such as waste cotton, waste paper, waste leather, wherein the pulverized waste materials are derived from waste fabrics, paper, and leather (textile scraps) [31], wherein the pulverized materials are 20 to 30 parts by weight and the plastic is 70 to 80 parts by weight of the plate (20-30 wt%) [33-35], wherein although Ahn’s range does not anticipate Applicant’s, where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I.
Further regarding claims 7-9 and 17-19, although the prior art does not disclose a bending strength, tensile strength, or elongation within the claimed ranges, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Ahn teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Regarding claims 6 and 10, the plate further comprises bonded reinforcing sheets and coatings on both sides there of [21, 23-25, 38-39].
Claims 1-4, 7-9, & 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Fonte Ferreira et al. (WO 98/18863 A1) (hereinafter “Da Fonte Ferreira”).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-9, and 16-19, Da Fonte Ferreira teaches a composite material (sheet) usable in decoration for civil architecture, furniture, or automobiles, wherein the composite material can be press molded or directly laminated to sublayers to form plywood, the composite material consisting of a blend of resin and leather fibers, the leather fibers derived from shredding leather fabrics (textile scraps) using mechanical processes similar to the ones used in the wood milling industry for plywood, the ratio of resin weight in the blend can vary between 10 and 75 wt%, such as between 30-40 wt% (60-70 wt% leather fibre) [pgs. 10-12, Part 3], wherein although Da Fonte Ferreira’s range does not anticipate Applicant’s, where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I.
Further regarding claims 7-9 and 17-19, although the prior art does not disclose a bending strength, tensile strength, or elongation within the claimed ranges, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Da Fonte Ferreira teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claims 5-10 & 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Fonte Ferreira, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Gauthier et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0073245 A1) (hereinafter “Gauthier”) OR Coulson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0184742 A1) (hereinafter “Coulson”).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 10, an explicit thickness value and/or range is not disclosed and the sheet is not said to be coated on either surface or the particular make-up of the sublayer.
Gauthier teaches a decorative material comprising a decorative leather layer (All Figs. [12]) comprising a bonded composite leather formed from leather scraps and bonding agents, wherein a leather layer having a thickness of about 0.2 to about 4.0 mm is acceptable, with a sheet of about 0.2 to 0.8 mm having particular utility [0005, 0013], wherein the decorative sheet is laminated to a wooden core/board (All Figs. [14]), such as plywood, via an impregnated underlay (coating) or thermally activated backer (adhesive) (All Figs. [16]) [0014-0016] and may also have a coated overlay thereabove for abrasion resistance (All Figs. [24]) [0018].
OR
Coulson teaches an engineered leather composite substrate usable as automotive interiors, furnishings, and architectural coverings [0098-0099], the engineered leather substrate comprising leather fibers derived from post-industrial or post-consumer waste [0003, 0005, 0024] and non-leather fibers, preferably textile fibers, such as cotton fibers, derived from post-industrial or post-consumer waste [0033-0034], and polymer binding agent [0048-0049] and optionally polymer cushioning agents [0036-0040], wherein the engineered leather composite substrate may be coated with one or more topcoat layers to improve durability and/or wearability of the material, to provide UV protection, and/or to provide color [0083-0085] and may be further laminated directly or via an adhesive to a backing that can provide stitchability, strength, stretchability, and/or drapability [0087-0093], wherein examples comprise a thickness/caliper of about 0.9 to about 1.4 mm [Table 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the leather-fiber based composite sheet usable in decoration for civil architecture, furniture, or automobiles with a thickness within the range claimed, a coating on upper and/or lower sides, and as a two-dimensional layer structure consisting of the composite sheet and at least one other layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the prior art for proper usable thicknesses including ones having particular utility [Gauthier] OR would be exemplary [Coulson], AND motivated to provide coating and substrate layers that are conventional and/or abrasion resistant [Gauther] OR to improve durability and/or wearability of the material, to provide UV protection, and/or to provide color and/or to provide stitchability, strength, stretchability, and/or drapability [Coulson].
Further regarding claims 7-9 and 17-19, although the prior art does not disclose a bending strength, tensile strength, or elongation within the claimed ranges, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Da Fonte Ferreira/Gauthier OR Da Fonte Ferreira/Coulson teach an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, & 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoll (WO 2009/135239 A1) (hereinafter “Stoll”).
Regarding claims 1-4, 7-9, and 16-19, Stoll teaches a composite material leather compound usable apparel, automotive applications, furniture, or construction [0004, 0091-095] forming an extruded sheet or panel consisting of thermoplastic resin and leather granulate/fibers having little to no impurities [0065, 0075] at the granulate/fibers in the composition at 20-70 wt% [0091-0103], wherein the leather granulate/fibers is derived from leather waste that is shredded and/or crushed into leather granulate/fibers and then sieved [0066-0088].
Further regarding claims 7-9 and 17-19, although the prior art does not disclose a bending strength, tensile strength, or elongation within the claimed ranges, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Stoll teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claim 5-10 & 17-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoll, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Gauthier et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0073245 A1) (hereinafter “Gauthier”) OR Coulson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0184742 A1) (hereinafter “Coulson”).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 10, an explicit thickness value and/or range is not disclosed and the sheet is not said to be coated on either surface or provided with at least one additional layer as claimed.
Gauthier teaches a decorative material for furniture and building products [0003] comprising a decorative leather layer (All Figs. [12]) comprising a bonded composite leather formed from leather scraps and bonding agents, wherein a leather layer having a thickness of about 0.2 to about 4.0 mm is acceptable, with a sheet of about 0.2 to 0.8 mm having particular utility [0005, 0013], wherein the decorative sheet is laminated to a wooden core/board (All Figs. [14]), such as plywood, via an impregnated underlay (coating) or thermally activated backer (adhesive) (All Figs. [16]) [0014-0016] and may also have a coated overlay thereabove for abrasion resistance (All Figs. [24]) [0018].
OR
Coulson teaches an engineered leather composite substrate usable as automotive interiors, furnishings, and architectural coverings [0098-0099], the engineered leather substrate comprising leather fibers derived from post-industrial or post-consumer waste [0003, 0005, 0024] and non-leather fibers, preferably textile fibers, such as cotton fibers, derived from post-industrial or post-consumer waste [0033-0034], and polymer binding agent [0048-0049] and optionally polymer cushioning agents [0036-0040], wherein the engineered leather composite substrate may be coated with one or more topcoat layers to improve durability and/or wearability of the material, to provide UV protection, and/or to provide color [0083-0085] and may be further laminated directly or via an adhesive to a backing that can provide stitchability, strength, stretchability, and/or drapability [0087-0093], wherein examples comprise a thickness/caliper of about 0.9 to about 1.4 mm [Table 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the leather-fiber based composite sheet usable for civil architecture, furniture, or automobiles with a thickness within the range claimed, a coating on upper and/or lower sides, and as a two-dimensional layer structure consisting of the composite sheet and at least one other layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the prior art for proper usable thicknesses including ones having particular utility [Gauthier] OR would be exemplary [Coulson], AND motivated to provide coating and substrate layers that are conventional and/or abrasion resistant [Gauther] OR to improve durability and/or wearability of the material, to provide UV protection, and/or to provide color and/or to provide stitchability, strength, stretchability, and/or drapability [Coulson].
Further regarding claims 7-9 and 17-19, although the prior art does not disclose a bending strength, tensile strength, or elongation within the claimed ranges, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Stoll/Gauthier OR Stoll/Coulson teach an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claims 1-10 & 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lorenz et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0032253 A1) (hereinafter “Lorenz”) or, wherein claims 7 & 16-18 are (alternatively) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lorenz.
Regarding claims 1-10 and 17-19, Lorenz teaches a planar composite material usable for furniture, construction panels, among other consumer goods [0006, 0139-0141], the composite material consisting of at least 15 wt% of an organic fibrous material, advantageously at least 30 wt%, in a particularly preferred embodiment about 40 to 60 wt% [0024], and at least 15 wt% of a thermoplastic binder [0012-0015, 0026], wherein the organic fibrous material preferably comprises leather fibers obtained from leather waste (fabric scrap) that is fiberized and size-reduced [0021-0023, 0025, 0073], and comprises a thickness of about 0.5 to about 1.0 mm, preferably about 0.6 to about 0.8 mm [0143], wherein a surface of the composite material may be coated to bond to any type of additional surfaces such as presspahn boards (wood composites/plastic layers) [0002, 0092-0094, 0137, 0139], wherein the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I. Furthermore, an example comprises about 45 wt% leather fibers derived from leather waste having a thickness of 0.6 mm, a tensile strength of 15 MPa (15 N/mm2), and an elongation of 25% [0003, 0146-0151, Table 1], wherein “when, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is in the prior art" Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2131.03 I.
Further regarding claims 7 and 17-18, although the prior art does not disclose a bending strength within the claimed ranges, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Lorenz teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, & 16-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kowalska et al. (PL 212180 B1) (hereinafter “Kowalska”), wherein claim 5 is evidenced by EN ISO 527, or, wherein claims 7 & 17-18 are (alternatively) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kowalska.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7-9, and 16-19, Kowalska teaches a composite panel/board (sheet) usable as automotive trim, equipment/appliance housing, finishing and/or sound absorbing layers in construction [0018-0023] consisting of a thermoplastic polymer and fibrous filler, wherein the fibrous filler comprises waste from fabrics such as post-production and post-consumer knitwear and carpets that is then subjected to a defibering process obtained by cutting and mesh filtering [0008, 0012-0014], wherein the fibrous filler is included in an amount constituting 5-60 wt%, preferably 10-50 wt% [0009-0010], wherein test pieces were measured for tensile modulus (Et), tensile strength (σB), elongation at break (εB), yield (bending) strength (σy), elongation at yield (εy), and flexural modulus (Ef), wherein the tensile properties (i) were each measured according to EN ISO 527, which as evidenced according thereto requires a test piece thickness of 1±0.2 mm or 2 ±0.2 mm (pgs. 6-7), and flexural properties (ii) were measured according to EN ISO 178, wherein multiple examples comprise multiple property values within the claimed ranges, such as example IV which is 70 wt% (virgin) polymer matrix (LDPE/PP) and 30 wt% textile-derived fibrous filler a test piece comprising a tensile strength of 13.65 MPa (N/mm2), an elongation of 9.48%.
Further regarding claims 7 and 17-18, although the prior art does not disclose a bending strength within the claimed units, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Kowalska teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Claims 6 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kowalska, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lorenz et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0032253 A1) (hereinafter “Lorenz”) or Kosonen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0063984 A1) (hereinafter “Kosonen”).
Regarding claims 6 and 10, the sheet is not said to be coated on either surface or provided with at least one additional layer as claimed.
Lorenz teaches a planar composite material usable for furniture, construction panels, among other consumer goods [0006, 0139-0141], wherein as may provide sound-absorbing properties thereto [0139], the composite material consisting of at least 15 wt% of an organic fibrous material, advantageously at least 30 wt%, in a particularly preferred embodiment about 40 to 60 wt% [0024], and at least 15 wt% of a thermoplastic binder [0012-0015, 0026], wherein the organic fibrous material preferably comprises leather fibers obtained from leather waste (fabric scrap) that is fiberized and size-reduced [0021-0023, 0025, 0073], and comprises a thickness of about 0.5 to about 1.0 mm, preferably about 0.6 to about 0.8 mm [0143], wherein a surface of the composite material may be coated to bond to any type of additional surfaces such as presspahn boards (wood composites/plastic layers) [0002, 0092-0094, 0137, 0139].
OR
Kosonen teaches a composite having acoustic properties, usable as a loudspeaker casing/enclosure (housing) component comprising plastic matrix material and organic natural fiber based material, wherein it may be a layered structure comprising at least one layer of composite and another layer comprising a paint, coating, fabric, wood, wood-based material, or metal, wherein an inner softer or less dense layer, which differs in acoustic properties to the composite [0197] or provide a desired surface finish [0203], or a polymer or adhesive layer for attachment of additional layers of composite or as recited above [0204].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the textile-derived fiber based composite sheet usable in furniture/architectural panels and appliance housing with a coating on at least one surface and as a two-dimensional layer structure consisting of the composite sheet and at least one other layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the ability to laminate preferably to a wood-based plastic layer [Lorenz] OR to provide differing acoustic properties, a desired surface finish, or the ability to attach to additional layers via lamination [Kosonen].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Kale et al. (Utilization of waste leather for the fabrication of composites and to study its mechanical and thermal properties) teach a leather-fiber based composite consisting of ground and powdered scrap leather (Section 3.1) in an epoxy matrix, wherein an example at a loading of 30 wt% comprises a thickness of 2.5 mm and a tensile strength of 20.43 MPa [Table 1, Run 12], which does not substantially change at different thicknesses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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 J 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 May 27th, 2026
Prosecution Insights