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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3 and 5, in the reply filed on 08/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/09/2024 and 11/12/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “large number of micro protrusions” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the claim is rejected for failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that is applicant’s invention. For the purposes of examination, the claim is to be interpreted as “at least one micro protrusion” as this appears to be applicant’s intent (See Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraph [0028]; Fig. 1). Furthermore, claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected for being dependent from rejected claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saida et al. (WO 2015/136921) in view of Maeda et al. (US 2022/0024173).
Regarding claim 1, Saida teaches a nubuck sheet material which mimics the appearance of natural leather (“a synthetic resin leather”) (Pg. 1). The sheet material includes a surface layer on a side of a fibrous base layer wherein the surface layer is formed from a polyurethane resin with convex and concave portions (“a base material; and a skin layer that is stacked on the base mateiral and is made of an elastically deformable synthetic resin”) (Pg. 2, Fig. 1). As shown in figures 1-2, the concave and convex portions are arranged in a regular manner (“at least one micro protrusion intermittently and regularly provided on a surface of the skin layer”).
Saida is silent with respect to the micro protrusions including a top surface part and having a substantially same height and pillar sections.
Maeda teaches thermoplastic resin sheets having hair-like bodies which improves tactile sensation and surface quality (Paragraph [0001]; [0005]). The resin sheet may be formed from a urethane-based elastomer (Paragraph [0013]). The bodies, as shown in figure 1, has a top section, which may be mushroom shaped, and a pillar section (Paragraph [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the concave and convex portions of Saida such that they are in the shape of the hair-shaped bodies with mushroom tops which provide improved tactile sensation and surface quality as taught by Maeda.
Regarding claim 2, Saida teaches the sheets as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the concave and convex portions are provided as the hair-shaped bodies with mushroom tops in order to improve tactile sensations and surface quality (“formed into prism shapes; top surface parts have planar shapes, or semispherical shapes”).
Regarding claim 3, Saida teaches the sheets as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Saida further teaches the heights and intervals of the portions being from 20 to 150 microns and 20 to 150 microns, respectively (Pg. 3). Maeda further teaches the diameters of the bodies to be from 1-50 microns in order to provide the improved tactile sensation (Pargraph [0058]).
Ultimately, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the resulting ratio of the diameter to the height and the intervals overlaps with that of the claimed range and the resulting intervals may be greater than the diameter.
Regarding claim 5, Saida teaches the sheets as discussed above with respect to claim 2. Saida further teaches the heights and intervals of the portions being from 20 to 150 microns and 20 to 150 microns, respectively (Pg. 3). Maeda further teaches the diameters of the bodies to be from 1-50 microns in order to provide the improved tactile sensation (Pargraph [0058]).
Ultimately, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the resulting ratio of the diameter to the height and the intervals overlaps with that of the claimed range and the resulting intervals may be greater than the diameter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights