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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/15/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2021/0114339 to An.
Claims 1 and 3, An discloses a composite structure comprising a textile layer and a cover layer, wherein the composite structure is elastic and shows an elongation of at least 20%, and wherein the textile layer is elastic and shows an elongation of at least 100% (see entire document including [0006] and [0042]-[0057]). In the event that it is shown that the applied prior art does not disclose the claimed embodiment with sufficient specificity, the invention is obvious because the prior art specifically discloses the claimed constituents.
Claim 2, considering that An discloses a substantially identical composite structure in terms of structure and elastomeric materials, the claimed burst elongation appears to be inherent. Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the composite structure with any desired burst elongation, such as claimed, based on the intended use and the desired/required final product properties.
Claim 4, the elastic fibers are selected from the group consisting of polyurethane fibers, polyurea fibers, diene elastomeric fibers, polyether ester elastomer fibers, polyolefin elastomeric fibers, composite elastomer fibers, and rigid elastic fibers or combinations thereof [0044].
Claim 5, the content of the elastic fibers is at least 10 mass % of the textile layer [0045].
Claim 6, the cover layer is directly bonded to the textile layer [0057].
Claim 7, the cover layer contains an elastomer ([0046] and [0057]).
Claim 8, the cover layer contains a thermoplastic or thermoset polymer selected from the group consisting of a polyolefin, a polyurethane, polyvinylchloride, or a combination thereof [0057].
Claim 9, the composite structure contains a compound structure consisting of a part of the textile layer and a part of the cover layer interpenetrating each other [0072].
Claim 10, the composite structure contains a foam (porous) layer, the textile layer, and the cover layer in this order, and/or wherein the cover layer contains a foam layer [0014].
Claim 11, An discloses that textile layer has a thickness of 0.1 to 2.5 mm, and the cover layer has a thickness of 0.05 mm to 1.5 mm [0092].
Claim 12, the composite structure is an artificial leather [0006].
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2010/0093243 to Uemura.
Claims 1 and 3, Uemura discloses a composite structure comprising a textile layer and a cover layer, wherein the composite structure is elastic and shows an elongation of at least 20% (see entire document including [0002], [0008], [0017], [0018], [0031], [0033] and [0044]-[0052]).
Regarding the textile showing elongation of at least 100%, Uemura discloses that the elongation of the textile layer may exceed 70% [0017]. Specifically, Uemura discloses that visual quality “may” deteriorate when applying the product around complicated three-dimensional shapes with such a high textile elongation ([0007] and [0017]). Therefore, Uemura teaches that visual quality is not always deteriorated. Plus, visual quality would not deteriorate when the synthetic leather is not applied around complicated three-dimensional shapes. Uemura either sufficiently teaches the claimed textile/fiber elongation or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the textile/fiber with any suitable elongation, such as the claimed at least 100%, for applications desiring/requiring high elasticity and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Applicant argued that the prior art taught away from use of a protective layer for a reflective article having a thickness within the claimed range of "50 to 100 Angstroms." Specifically, a patent to Zehender, which was relied upon to reject applicant's claim, included a statement that the thickness of the protective layer "should be not less than about [100 Angstroms]." The court held that the patent did not teach away from the claimed invention. "Zehender suggests that there are benefits to be derived from keeping the protective layer as thin as possible, consistent with achieving adequate protection. A thinner coating reduces light absorption and minimizes manufacturing time and expense. Thus, while Zehender expresses a preference for a thicker protective layer of 200-300 Angstroms, at the same time it provides the motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to focus on thickness levels at the bottom of Zehender's 'suitable' range- about 100 Angstroms- and to explore thickness levels below that range. The statement in Zehender that '[i]n general, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about [100 Angstroms]' falls far short of the kind of teaching that would discourage one of skill in the art from fabricating a protective layer of 100 Angstroms or less. [W]e are therefore 'not convinced that there was a sufficient teaching away in the art to overcome [the] strong case of obviousness' made out by Zehender."). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 2, considering that Uemura discloses an elongation of from 30 to 60%, the claimed burst elongation of the composite structure of at least 50% in a test according to ISO 13934-1 appears to be inherent. Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the synthetic leather with any desired burst elongation, such as claimed, based on the intended use and the desired/required final product properties.
Claim 4, the elastic fibers are selected from the group consisting of polyurethane fibers, polyurea fibers, diene elastomeric fibers, polyether ester elastomer fibers, polyolefin elastomeric fibers, composite elastomer fibers, and rigid elastic fibers or combinations thereof [0018]. Plus, Uemura discloses that any the fiber material is not limited [0018] and the examiner takes official notice that the claimed fibers are known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the fibers with the claimed fiber material because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 5, the content of the elastic fibers is at least 10 mass % of the textile layer [0018].
Claim 6, the cover layer is directly bonded to the textile layer ([0054]-[0070]).
Claim 7, the cover layer contains an elastomer [0052].
Claim 8, the cover layer contains a thermoplastic or thermoset polymer selected from the group consisting of a polyolefin, a polyurethane, polyvinylchloride, or a combination thereof [0052].
Claim 9, the composite structure contains a compound structure consisting of a part of the textile layer and a part of the cover layer interpenetrating each other [0031].
Claim 10, the composite structure contains a foam (porous) layer, the textile layer, and the cover layer in this order, and/or wherein the cover layer contains a foam layer ([0033] and [0044]-[0047]).
Claim 11, Uemura discloses that the cover layer may have the claimed thickness ([0046] and [0050]). Uemura does not appear to mention the specific thickness of the textile layer but the invention of Uemura is directed to synthetic leather [0002] and the examiner takes official notice that synthetic leather fabric conventionally has the claimed thickness of 0.1 to 2.5 mm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the textile layer with the claimed thickness, because it is conventional and/or because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a material thickness on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 12, the composite structure is an artificial leather (title).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights