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
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(s) 1-5, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-201044982 to Zhang in view of CN-104927236 to Han.
Regarding Claims 1-5, 7 and 9
Zhang teaches a synthetic leather comprising a fibrous substrate, a polyvinyl chloride foam layer, a PVC non-foam layer and a urethane texture layer on or above the non-foam layer(protective layer) wherein the PVC layers may comprise plasticizer (Zhang, abstract, technical field, description).
Zhang does not specifically teach an amount of plasticizer or that the plasticizer comprises both a phthalate ester and a polyester based plasticizer. However, Han teaches that including within a PVC film a plasticizer in an amount of roughly 90 parts plasticizer to 100 parts PVC which comprises both 30-60 parts of C9-dialkylphthalate and 5 to 35 parts of an adipic acid based polyester plasticizer which results in a ratio of approximately 54:36 to 92:8 which overlaps the claimed range of between 73:27 and 87:13 (Han, abstract, claims 1-4). Han teaches that this specific mixture of plasticizers result in improved tear resistance, tensile strength, elongation at break and UV ageing resistance (Id., paragraph [0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the artificial leather of Zhang and to include the plasticizers of Han, motivated by the desire to form a conventional PVC composite material having improved tear resistance, tensile strength, elongation at break and UV ageing resistance.
Regarding Claims 2-3
Zhang does not specifically teach the molecular weight or viscosity of the adipic acid based polyester plasticizer. It should be noted that the molecular weight and related viscosity are result effective variables. As molecular weight/viscosity increases, the material exhibits decreased plasticization efficiency resulting in higher cost and processing difficulty (Han, background). Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the molecular weight/viscosity since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In the present invention one would have been motivated to optimize the molecular weight/viscosity of the chosen adipic acid based polyester plasticizer in order to provide plasticization efficiency, low cost and high processability.
Regarding Claim 9
Regarding the limitations of “formed by,” these limitations are product-by-process limitations. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Han as applied to claims 1-5, 7 and 9 above, in view of KR-10-2018-0043430 to Ha.
Regarding Claim 6
Zhang teaches that the composite includes an adhesive layer between the fibrous substrate and the foam layer (Id.) but does not specify the composition of the adhesive. Therefore, it would have been necessary and obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to look to the prior art for exemplary adhesives used in PVC based artificial leathers. Ha provides this conventional teaching, showing a multilayer PVC based leather comprising an adhesive layer composition comprising vinyl chloride based resin and containing polyurethane resin (Ha, abstract, adhesive layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite of the prior art combination, and to use the specific adhesive resin, as taught by Ha, motivated by the desire to form a conventional PVC leather comprising adhesives which are known in the art to be predictably suitable for use in PVC bonding applications.
Regarding Claim 8
The prior art combination does not appear to teach an undercoat layer under the protective layer. However, Ha teaches a “color layer” comprising polyurethane which is provided under the surface treatment layer and provides color and design effects to the artificial leather (Ha, color layer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the PVC leather of the prior art combination and to include a color layer (undercoat layer) beneath the surface treatment layer as taught by Ha, motivated by the desire to form a conventional artificial leather having customizable color, pattern and design modification for the desired application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT A TATESURE whose telephone number is (571)272-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-4PM EST.
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, Jennifer Chriss can be reached at 5712727783. 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.
/VINCENT TATESURE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights