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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2024 and 04/01/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 and 9-12 in the reply filed on 06/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-8 and 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/02/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hironaka et al. (WO 2020/054256) with citations from English language equivalent (US 2021/0180247).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Hironaka discloses a napped artificial leather (0042) comprising an entangled fiber layer (12, 13) and scrim (11) contacting the fiber layer (Fig. 1, 3A; 0066-0067) impregnated with an elastomer (0042). The fiber layer composed of fibers having an average diameter of preferably 2 to 6 µm (0071), anticipating the claimed mean diameter of 2.0 to 7.0 µm (MPEP 2131.03).
Hironaka does not expressly teach when a porosity is measured in the thickness direction from the front side to the back side Formulas (1) to (3) are satisfied.
Hironaka however teaches the same mean fiber diameter as well as the same method of hydroentanglement to integrate the fiber layer with the scrim (0089). Applicants specification (see paragraph 0020) teaches that when the mean diameter of the fibers is 2.0 µm or greater ε-A min tends to be 60% or greater and during the hydroentangling step ε-A -Smax tends to be 70% or greater; when the mean fiber diameter is 7.0 µm or lower ε-A min tends to be 70% or lower and during the hydroentangling step ε-A -Smax tends to be 80% or lower. Consequently, the product of Hironaka would be expected to satisfy formulas (1) to (3) as claimed.
Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)), see MPEP 2112. Applicant has not clearly shown an unobvious difference between the instant invention and the prior art’s product. Regarding claim 2, as applicant has not defined the number of neighbors or neighbor distance, as such, any neighbor distances may be selected such that the claimed ratio is met. Alternatively, this ratio appears to be met by Hironaka (e.g., Fig. 3A).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Hironaka teaches water-dispersible polyurethane.
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Hironaka teaches the fibers are polyester-based fibers (0068).
Regarding claim 12, Hironaka discloses a napped artificial leather (0042) comprising an entangled fiber layer (12, 13) and scrim (11) contacting the fiber layer (Fig. 1, 3A; 0066-0067).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hironaka.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, applicants specification teaches that the relative location of the minimum porosity (ε-A min) can be adjusted by the applied water pressure (specification 0017). The specification further teaches a preferable water pressure of 1 to 10 MPa (0042).
Hironaka teaches water pressure of the hydroentanglement of 1 to 10 MPA (0089). Consequently, the relative location of ε-A min in the fiber layer of Hironaka would be expected to anticipate or, in the alternative, overlap the claimed range of 20 to 95% in the thickness direction as claimed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights