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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, and 5-6 have been amended. Claims 1-9 are pending. Applicant’s amendment to the claims have overcome 112(a)/112(b) objection/rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 03/15/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/23/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feng et al. (US 2020/0354887 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 5, Feng teaches a thermoplastic artificial leather, method for manufacturing the same and thermoplastic composite laminate, see abstract. The material to include co-extruding a first material 31 and second material 32, to form an unfoamed thermoplastic elastic layer 124 – (construed as a thermoplastic elastomer) and a foamed thermoplastic elastic layer 122 – (construed as a modified thermoplastic elastomer), see [0050] - (construed as which includes a laminated structure formed by co-extruding a thermoplastic elastomer and a modified thermoplastic elastomer). The material to further include an adhesive layer 126 which is disposed on the surface of the foamed thermoplastic/modified thermoplastic layer – (construed as a surface layer adhered to the modified thermoplastic elastomer of the laminate structure), see [0051], FIG 3A. And where the surface layer material comprises a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), see [0041] – (construed as the surface layer includes thermoplastic polyurethane surface layer).
Regarding claim 2, Feng discloses the foamed thermoplastic elastic layer/modified thermoplastic elastomer is formed of thermoplastic polyurethane, see [0037] – (construed as the modified thermoplastic elastomer includes thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)) and the unfoamed thermoplastic elastic layer/thermoplastic elastomer is formed of a thermoplastic polyolefin TPO, see [0039] – (construed as the thermoplastic elastomer includes thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO)).
Regarding claim 4, Feng discloses the laminate includes the use of a textile base 14 formed of a nonwoven or woven fabric, see [0042] – (construed as a substrate layer, wherein the laminated structure is disposed on the substrate layer, and the substrate layer includes non-woven fabric, woven fabric).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feng et al. (US 2020/0354887 A1 – of record).
Regarding claim 6, Feng discloses a thermoplastic artificial leather, method for manufacturing the same and thermoplastic composite laminate, see abstract. The material to include co-extruding a first material 31 and second material 32, to form an unfoamed thermoplastic elastic layer 124 – (construed as a thermoplastic elastomer raw material) and a foamed thermoplastic elastic layer 122 – (construed as a modified thermoplastic elastomer raw material), see [0050] - (construed as providing a thermoplastic elastomer raw material and a modified thermoplastic elastomer raw material; and co-extruding the thermoplastic elastomer raw material and the modified thermoplastic elastomer raw material to form a laminated structure, wherein the thermoplastic elastomer raw material forms a thermoplastic elastomer, and the modified thermoplastic elastomer raw material forms a modified thermoplastic elastomer). And includes forming an adhesive layer 126 disposed on the surface of the foamed thermoplastic/modified thermoplastic layer, see [0051], FIG 3A – (construed as forming a surface layer on the modified thermoplastic elastomer of the laminated structure).
Regarding claim 7, Feng discloses the foamed thermoplastic elastic layer/modified thermoplastic elastomer raw material is formed of thermoplastic polyurethane, see [0037] – (construed as the modified thermoplastic elastomer raw material includes thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU)) and the unfoamed thermoplastic elastic layer/thermoplastic elastomer raw material is formed of a thermoplastic polyolefin TPO, see [0039] – (construed as the thermoplastic elastomer raw material includes thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO)).
Regarding claim 8, Feng discloses the foamed thermoplastic elastic layer/modified thermoplastic elastomer raw material has a Shore hardness of 50A to 85A inclusive, see [0037] and the unfoamed thermoplastic elastic layer/thermoplastic elastomer raw material has a Shore hardness of 60A to 80A inclusive, see [0039] – (construed as and overlaps a hardness of the thermoplastic elastomer raw material is 50A to 95A, and a hardness of the modified thermoplastic elastomer raw material is 50A to 95A). Concerning the claimed ranges: It has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' with sufficient specificity”, then the claimed range is anticipated, see MPEP § 2131.03(II).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 2020/0354887 A1 – of record), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2022/0041820 A1 – of record).
Regarding claim 3, while Feng discloses the use of thermoplastic elastic material as a thermoplastic polyolefin TPO, see at least [0037]; it does not the TPO is a blend. However, a composition suitable for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination, see MPEP 2144.07. Moreover, Lin discloses a laminate which uses a thermoplastic polyolefin TPO which is anhydride grafted, see abstract. The graft comprises maleic anhydride supplied in an amount of 10% to 30% by weight of the TPO elastomer, see [0015] – (construed as and overlaps a total weight of the modified thermoplastic elastomer is calculated as 100wt%, and a content of the maleic anhydride is less than or equal to 40wt%). And one would consider such a TPO modification, as Lin further discloses this is beneficial for providing adherence to any material and avoiding the problem of ineffective adhesion as encountered in conventional techniques, see at least [0016].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feng’s TPO material to be grafted with maleic anhydride as taught by Lin to provide Feng’s laminate with enhanced adhesion as suggested by Lin. Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the maleic anhydride amount to be within the claimed range, as Lin suggests doing so provides a benefit as discussed above. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (US 2020/0354887 A1 – of record), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2022/0041820 A1 – of record).
Regarding claim 9, while Feng discloses when using TPU as a thermoplastic elastic raw material, the extruder has a temperature of 185°C, see at least [0061] and the use of TPO; it does not disclose any extruder temperature when using TPO as a thermoplastic elastic raw material.
Lin discloses a laminate which uses a thermoplastic polyolefin TPO which is anhydride grafted, see abstract. Lin further discloses this is beneficial for providing adherence to any material and avoiding the problem of ineffective adhesion as encountered in conventional techniques, see at least [0016]. And further when extruding the TPO, the extruder temperature is 205°C, see at least [0040]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feng’s TPO material to be grafted with maleic anhydride as taught by Lin to provide Feng’s laminate with enhanced adhesion as suggested by Lin. Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the extruder temperature to be within the claimed range, as Lin suggests doing so provides a benefit as discussed above. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed date have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues that: Applicant respectfully submits that the feature "a surface layer adhered to the modified them1oplastic elastomer of the laminated structure," in conjunction with the remaining claim limitations, differentiate the subject matter of claim 1 from the prior art record. And further: Likewise, 111 regard to claim 6, "wherein the thermoplastic elastomer raw material forms a thermoplastic elastomer, and the modified thermoplastic elastomer raw material forms a modified thermoplastic elastomer" and "forming a surface layer on the modified thermoplastic elastomer of the laminated structure'' have been added to claim 6 to differentiate from the prior art or record.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees: Feng discloses such a “surface layer” in at least FIG. 3A and [0050]-[0051] as detailed in the rejections of claims 1 and 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571) 272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on (571) 270-5545. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights