DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of electing Group I (claims 1-5) in the reply filed on January 29, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “there is no serious burden and/or examination burden placed on the Examiner. MPEP § 803. The burden is on the Examiner to provide reasons and/or examples to support any conclusion in regard to patentable distinction. MPEP § 803. Moreover, when citing lack of unity of invention in a national stage application, the Examiner has the burden of explaining why each group lacks unity with each other group specifically describing special technical features in each group. See MPEP § 1893.03(d)” on page 2 of the Applicant’s remarks and arguments. This is not found persuasive because respectfully, section on MPEP § 803 is not applicable for Restriction Requirement in National Stage Applications Submitted Under 35 U.S.C. 371. According to section of MPEP § 1850 that discusses lack of unity did not require provide a search burden. "Search burden" is only a requirement for US restriction practice. Groups I-II share the common technical feature of a napped artificial leather. However, this composition fails to become a special technical feature as it is not novel. In particular, as it is anticipated, or rendered obvious, by refection below. Therefore, the common technical feature fails to become a special technical feature. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 29, 2026.
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.
Claim 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masato et al. (JP 2014005564 A) as evidenced by Ravandi et al. (NPL titled: Properties of fibers and fabrics that contribute to human comfort).
Regarding claim 1, Masato teaches a napped artificial leather (Abstract, [0069]), comprising: a nonwoven fabric, which is an entangled body of microfine fibers ([0023], [0064], as evidenced by Ravandi et al. microfiber is defined as a staple fiber or filaments of linear density approximately1 dtex or less, and above 0.3 dtex (Ravandi et al page 68, 2.3.2 Microfibers, therefore Masato teaches a nonwoven fabric, which is an entangled body of microfine fibers); and a high-molecular elastic body, such as polyurethan, \attached to the nonwoven fabric, the napped artificial leather having a napped surface formed by napping the microfine fiber on at least one surface because a sea-island-type filament, in which PET is an island component was discharged to obtain long fiber webs, the entangled long fiber web was heat-shrunk with steam and impregnates with liquid polyurethane, and the sea component was removed to obtain an intermediate sheet; on the sliced surface ([0027], [0040], [0041], reads on a high-molecular elastic body attached to the nonwoven fabric, the napped artificial leather having a napped surface formed by napping the microfine fiber on at least one surface same method is applied as current specification to produce the napped artificial leather), and satisfying the following conditions (1) and (2):(1) the nonwoven fabric comprises microfine polyester filaments ([0025]), and(2) the fiber density D1 in the transverse direction is from 150 to 450 fibers/mm2, the fiber density D2 in the machine direction is from 150 to 450 fibers/mm2, and D1/D2 is from 0.7 to 1.1 because wherein the island is 25 for example and the artificial leather vase material having an average of 3,049 fine fiber cross sections/mm2 (here, considering that the specification paragraph [0018] and [0087] of the present application indicates that the fiber density was determined by dividing the number of fibers by the number of islands, the fiber density is calculated to be about 122 filaments/mm2 when converted into the sea-island filament), because Masato does not explicitly teach the different density of transverse direction or machine direction, it is reads as the transverse and the machine direction have the same fiber density therefor the ratio of transverse direction density/ machine direction density is 1 ([0064], [0087]). However, Masato recognizes the density of the fiber is adjusted by changing the island number and fiber cross sections/mm2 ([0064], 00087]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the density of the fiber to yield a flexible and strength product (abstract). Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in know process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 2, Masato teaches a napped artificial leather as disclosed above, because Masato does not explicitly teach the different elongation in the transverse direction and in the machine direction at a constant load of 110.8N, it is reads as the transverse and the machine direction can have the same elongation therefor the ratio of transverse direction density/ machine direction density is 1 ([0064], [0087]). Although Masato does not explicitly teach the claimed shape & configuration, modifying the apparatus of Masato in the present application to have the shape & configuration recited in the claim is not expected to alter the operation of the device in a patentably distinct way. Where the configuration of the claimed subject matter is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed subject matter was significant is not patent eligible subject matter. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 3, Masato teaches wherein the high-molecular elastic body, such as polyurethane has a solid content of 3.5% by weight for example ([0074]).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding claim 4, Masato teaches a napped artificial leather as disclosed above. Masato does not explicitly teach wherein the breaking elongation in the machine direction, which is measured according to Method A in 8.14.1 of JIS L 1096 (1999), is 60% or more. However, Masato recognizes the breaking elongation is adjusted by changing the island number and fiber cross sections/mm2 or the density ([0064], 00087]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the breaking elongation to yield a flexible and strength product (abstract). Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in know process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 5, Masato teaches a napped artificial leather as disclosed above. Masato does not explicitly teach wherein the breaking elongation in the transverse direction, which is measured according to Method A in 8.14.1 of JIS L 1096 (1999), is 60% or more. However, Masato recognizes the breaking elongation is adjusted by changing the island number and fiber cross sections/mm2 or the density ([0064], 00087]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the breaking elongation to yield a flexible and strength product (abstract). Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in know process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI YAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7181. The examiner can normally be reached on MTTHF.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAH-WEI YUAN can be reached on 5712721295. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAI Y ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717