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 § 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.
Claims 1-13 are 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.
Claim 1: A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “flexible laminar cover materials”, and the claim also recites “such as hides and skin” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination the narrower language is interpreted as at least inclusive of being merely exemplary.
Claim 1 recites: The term “relatively low quality with a visible surface having relatively extensive surface defects” which are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively low quality” and “relatively extensive” are 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. There is no way to determine a threshold quality being capture by “relatively low quality” (is it a certain grade, roughness, visual appearance, smell, texture, etc or combination thereof, and at what threshold) to identify what materials fall within the scope of the claims. There is no way to determine a threshold degree of surface defects (2, 5, 10, 25, 50, etc, further within a particular area of measurement?) to identify what materials fall within the scope of the claims. For purposes of examination, “relatively low quality” and “having relatively extensive surface defects” will be interpreted as at least inclusive of any of the above scenarios.
Claim 1 recites: The term “between a few seconds and a few minutes” which are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “few” applied to both of these units of time 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. There is no way to determine a threshold endpoints of the range being capture by “between a few seconds and a few minutes” (is it any of 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 20…etc seconds and 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 20…etc minutes ?) to identify what duration of treatment falls within the scope of the claims. For purposes of examination, “between a few seconds and a few minutes” will be interpreted as at least inclusive of any of the above scenarios.
Claim 1: A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “an advancement speed”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 4 and 7 m/min” which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination the narrower language is interpreted as at least inclusive of being merely exemplary.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “resin coating of the flesh side.". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 from which claim 5 depends has only actively required flexible laminar cover materials. As described above, the additional recitation of “such as hides and skins” interpreted as at least inclusive of being merely exemplary. As such there would exist a lack of antecedent basis as to which side of a flexible laminar cover material would equate to “the flesh side”. For purposes of examination, “the flesh side” will be interpreted as at least inclusive of any side of the flexible laminar cover material.
The other dependent claims do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend.
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agosti (WO 2015/110953; hereafter Agosti) in view of Ogawa et al (US 2010/0310882; hereafter Ogawa)
.
Claim 1: Agosti teaches a method of surface treatment of flexible laminar cover materials, such as hides, intended for use in the automotive and aeronautical industry, (See, for example, pg 1, additionally / alternatively, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim). comprising at least the following steps:
a) selecting a laminar material of relatively low quality with a visible surface having relatively extensive surface defects (see, for example, pg 1, pg 10, “low quality hides”);
b) depositing (via first application means 14) on the visible surface of the laminar material a first layer (4) of a first resin in a liquid state with a weight of a first predetermined value (see, for example, Fig 1-4, pg 8-9);
c) drying the first resin by applying a heat source (7) so as to obtain an intermediate laminar semi-finished product (see, for example, Fig 1-4, pg 10 lines 26-30);
d) providing a laminar support (tape 12) having an active surface with a pattern (embossed surface 2) to be transferred on the visible surface of the laminar material (See, for example, Fig 1-4, pg 5 lines 18-24, pg 8 lines 20-35);
e) depositing on the active surface of the laminar support a second layer of a second resin (4) in a liquid state with a weight of a second predetermined value (See, for example, Fig 1-4, pg. 8-9);
f) drying the second resin by applying a heat source (16) (See, for example, Fig 1-4, pg 9 lines 7-15);
g) coupling (via coupling unit 19) said laminar support with said intermediate laminar semi-finished product so as to face said visible surface with said active surface to obtain a coupled sandwich (see, for example, Fig 1-4, pg 11 line 25 – pg 12 line 3);
h) calendering said coupled sandwich by applying a first predetermined pressure and temperature (See, for example, pg 12, Fig 1-4);
i) heating the calendared sandwich at a second predetermined temperature to complete associated drying and consolidation of the first resin and the second resin to obtain a laminar finished product (See, for example, Fig 1-4 and pg 13);
j) detaching the laminar finished product from the laminar support (see, for example, Fig 1-4, separation unit 50, pg 13);
characterized in that the deposition of said first resin and second resin is carried out with a layer with approximately constant final thickness on said laminar finished product (see, for example, Fig 1-4, pg 6 lines 4-10, and pg 13; such as an overall bilayer thickness of 0.08 mm (80 micron) (from the taught preferred embodiment of 0.04 mm for the first layer and 0.04 mm of the second layer))
wherein said step i) of heating the calendered sandwich is carried out with an advancement speed of the sandwich preferably between 5 and 10 m/min through an oven length of 10 m long, resulting in a calculated duration of 30 seconds to 1 min of heating (pg 12 lines 20-30).
Agosti further teaches wherein its invention is designed to lower requisite temperatures to achieve improved properties, and wherein the speed and temperature are system parameters that have a determining influence on the characteristics of the final desired product (See, for example, pg 14 lines 20-28, and pg 15 line10 – pg 16 line 10). But it does not explicitly state that step i) of heating the calendared sandwich results in crosslinking of the first and second resins, further being carried out at a temperature between 40° C. and 100° C. Ogawa teaches a method of providing leather with multi-layered polyurethane based coatings to improve various properties (See, for example, abstract, [0035]). Ogawa further particularly teaches wherein the strength and wear resistance of the article is improved by adding a crosslinking agent to cross-link the resins of the coating during (see, for example, [0039]), [0108], [0323], [0351]). Ogawa further teaches wherein following application of the resin layer stack, final heating at 40-50OC is performed at to complete crosslinking (See, for example, [0328], [0352]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated crosslinking of the resins, further by heating of 40-50C, as crosslinking the resins will improve various properties including strength and wear resistance and as thermal treatment at such temperature is taught to predictably achieve said crosslinking, and since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. (MPEP 2144.05 II A). Ogawa similarly further teaches wherein the total thickness of the sum of its final resin layers is from 30-100 microns, and as uniform as possible (see, for example, [0086-0087], and [0091] [0247), and calculated by adding the thickness ranges of its base (20-50 micron), color (5-25 micron), and top coat layers (5-25 micron).
Claim 2: Agosti further wherein said laminar support is release paper (paper tape 12) (See, for example, pg 8 lines 24-27).
Claim 3: Agosti further teaches wherein said first resin (11) is a mixture of individual components selected from polyurethane resin, acrylic resin or a butadiene resin (See, for example, pg 10).
Claim 4: Agosti in view of Ogawa teach the method of claim 1 above, wherein Agosti has taught the resins as comprising polyurethane, acrylic, or butadiene resins (see, for example, pg 9 lines 3-4, and pg 10 lines 4-9) , and Ogawa further teaches said second resin is selected from a group comprising polyurethanes with an addition of crosslinking agents of an isocyanate type (See, for example, [0142-0143], [0173-0175], examples 1&2).
Claim 5: Agosti in view of Ogawa teach the method of claim 1 above, wherein Ogawa further teaches that natural leather supports are pre-processed including steps of using a chrome or chrome-free tanning agent, re-tanning & dyeing/greasing step using a synthetic tanning agent, and a drying step (which further includes a setter step, hang drying step, conditioning step, vibration step and buffing step), and finishing step prior to finishing steps of back sizing step, and resin coating steps (See, for example, [0082]).
Claim 6: Agosti in view of Ogawa teach the method of claim 1 above, wherein Ogawa further teaches that natural leather supports are pre-processed including steps of using a chrome or chrome-free tanning agent, re-tanning & dyeing/greasing step using a synthetic tanning agent, and a drying step (which further includes a setter step, hang drying step, conditioning step, vibration step and buffing (grinding) step) prior to finishing steps of back sizing step (grouting), and resin coating steps (See, for example, [0082] wherein at least the back sizing step would read on grouting as sizing materially is applied into the surface prior to resin coating, and buffing would read on grinding).
Claim 7: Agosti in view of Ogawa teach the method of claim 1 above, wherein Agosti has taught wherein each of the layer thicknesses desired is on the order of 0.02 to 0.07 mm to achieve the upgraded leather, and wherein the first layer can be a colored coating layer (See, for example, pg 3 lines 30-35, pg 6 lines 6-11). But Agosti is silent as the arial density of the coating to achieve such coverage so it does not explicitly teach a first value of weight of the first layer of the first resin is between 21.5 – 269 g/m2 on a wet basis. Ogawa further teaches its color coat resin forms a final thickness of 5 to 25 micron, and wherein the value of weight of the color coat resin layer (first layer of said first resin) is between 30-40 g/m2 on a wet basis, and / or alternatively it’s base resin coating layer prior to the color coating layer is applied at 80-120 g/m2 on a wet basis to achieve a thickness of 20-50 micron (see, for example, [0086-0087], and [0324-325]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a first value of weight of the first layer of the first resin from between 30 – 40 g/m2 (interpreting wherein the color coat aligns with the first layer) , 80-120g/m2 (interpreting wherein the base coat aligns with the first layer), or 30- 160 g/m2 (interpreting wherein the collective color and base coat align with the first layer) on a wet basis, as such a value achieves the desired layer thickness and achieves the predictable result of providing improved properties for initially low quality leathers, further when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Claim 8: Agosti further teaches wherein said first resin is deposited (from “second application means” 18) using techniques selected from a group comprising spray deposition, roller deposition, doctor blade deposition (see, for example, Fig 1-4, pg 7 lines 7-11, pg 9 line 33-pg 10 line 3).
Claim 9: Agosti in view of Ogawa teach the method of claim 1 above, wherein Agosti has taught wherein each of the layer thicknesses desired is on the order of 0.02 to 0.07 mm to achieve the upgraded leather (See, for example, pg 3 lines 30-35, pg 6 lines 6-11). But Agosti is silent as the arial density of the coating to achieve such coverage, so it does not explicitly teach a second value of weight of the second layer of said second resin is comprised between 0.2 g/m2 and 50 g/m2 on a dry basis. Ogawa further teaches its top coat resin forms a final thickness of 5 to 25 micron, and wherein the value of weight of the top coat resin layer (first layer of said first resin) is between 20-70 g/m2 on a wet basis, and prepared as an aqueous mixture at a ratio of solids to water content at 25:75 by weight, which by calculation results in a dry basis of 5 to 17.5 g/m2 (see, for example, [0091], and [0327]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a second value of weight of the second layer of the second resin from between 5 to 17.5 g/m2 on dry basis, as such a value achieves the desired layer thickness and achieves the predictable result of providing improved properties for initially low quality leathers, further when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Claim 10: Agosti further teaches wherein said second resin is deposited (from “first application means” 14) using techniques selected from a group comprising roller deposition, doctor blade deposition (See, for example, Fig 1-4, pg 7 lines 7-11, pg 8 line 31 – pg 9 line 2)
Claim 11: Agosti in view of Ogawa teach the method of claim 1 above, Agosti further teaches wherein its invention is designed to lower requisite temperatures to achieve improved properties, and wherein the speed and temperature are system parameters that have a determining influence on the characteristics of the final desired product (See, for example, pg 14 lines 20-28, and pg 15 line10 – pg 16 line 10). And Agosti has taught f) drying the second resin (top coat) by applying a heat source (16) to achieve an at least partial consolidation / polymerization (See, for example, Fig 1-4, pg 9 lines 7-15), but it is silent as to a particular temperature. Ogawa further teaches wherein following application of its top coat drying / heating at 40-50OC is performed at to implement crosslinking (See, for example, [0328], [0352]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the drying of the top coat (second layer) at 40-50o C, as such a temperature as crosslinking the resins will improve various properties including strength and wear resistance and as thermal treatment at such temperature is taught to predictably implement crosslinking, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference; and further since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claim 12: Agosti further teaches said step h) of calendering the coupled sandwich is carried out at a pressure between 30-90 atm (~3-9 Mpa) and a temperature of 120oC and 190oC (see, for example, pg 12 lines 13-17). Although such a temperature range is not explicitly a temperature between 50° C. and 150° C, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a temperature within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 13: Agosti further teaches wherein after said step j) of detachment of the laminar finished product, the laminar support is cleaned of any residual resins and rewound to be reused (See, for example, Fig 1-4, pg 13 lines 25-34).
Claim(s) 6 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agosti in view of Ogawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schaefer (DE102014008158; citations directed to machine translation provided herein; hereafter Schaefer).
Claim 6: Agosti in view of Ogawa teach the method of claim 1. For sake of argument that the pre-treatment sizing and buffing steps of Ogawa (refer to the rejection of claim 6 over Agosti in view of Ogawa above) don’t read on the claimed grouting and grinding steps; Schaefer has taught a method of providing polyurethane coatings to leather (See, for example, [0001]). Schaefer further teaches wherein prior to application of such resin coatings the surface can be treated to provide depressions and / or perforations which can subsequently be filled with a polyurethane agent to enhance the adhesion of overlying resin layers to the leather (See, for example, [0005]). Schaefer further teaches where the application of filling material into the depressions (grouting) is followed by grinding to remove protruding residues (See, for example, [0059], [0063]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated subjecting the laminar material to grouting and grinding steps before said step b) of deposition since such steps would predictably enhance the adhesion between the laminar material and the subsequently applied resins.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712