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, in the reply filed on July 29, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 5-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-4 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.
Regarding claims 1-4, claim 1 recites the napped artificial leather having a napped surface, wherein an area ratio of the high-molecular elastic body present on the napped surface is 17% or less. It is unclear exactly what a “high-molecular elastic body” necessarily entails, as the limitation appears to be subjective and qualitative.
Additionally, it is unclear what the “napped surface” necessarily entails. For example, it is unclear where the “napped surface” necessarily begins, such as at the ends of napped fibers, or at the base of napped fibers, or something else. Additionally, it is unclear what portion of the structure is necessarily associated with the claimed area ratio, as the structure associated with the napped surface is unclear.
Additionally, the claim recites that a content of the high-molecular elastic body is 15 to 35% by mass. It is unclear what the scope of “high-molecular” necessarily entails, as the limitation is subjective and qualitative. Additionally, it is unclear if the content is based on the leather, or the fabric containing the fibers and the elastic body, or in comparison to only the fibers, or something else.
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 1-4 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 JP 2008-280643 to Yoshida, as evidenced by the machine translation.
Regarding claims 1-4, Yoshida teaches a suede-like artificial leather containing a polymeric elastomer in an entangled fiber material composed of fine fiber bundles having ultrafine fiber plush on the surface, wherein the average single fiber fineness of the fibers is 0.0001-0.5 dtex, the fiber constituting the plush accounts for 70-100% of the surface of the suede-like artificial leather, and the average napped fiber length is 200-1000µm (Yoshida, Abstract, paragraph 0032). Yoshida teaches that the polymeric elastic material includes various polyurethanes (Id., paragraph 0017), wherein the ratio of polymer elastic material to fiber entanglement material is 5/95 to 60/40 by mass ratio (Id., claim 2), such as 20/80 (Id., paragraphs 0039m, 0042). Yoshida teaches that at least one surface is subjected to a napping treatment such as buffing to form an ultrafine fiber napped surface (Id., paragraphs 0030-0032), such as an average napped fiber length of 250 µm (Id., paragraph 0042). Yoshida teaches that the spinning method for ultrafine fiber generation requires at least one water-soluble polymer component and at least one water-poorly soluble polymer component that becomes an ultrafine fiber (Id., paragraph 0010), wherein the water-poorly soluble component is preferably polyester-based (Id., paragraph 0012). Yoshida teaches forming a long or short fiber web by spunbonding, and needlepunching the webs (Id., paragraphs 0015, 0035, 0037, 0042). Such a structure is ordinarily known in the art as a nonwoven.
Regarding the claimed area ratio, Yoshida teaches that the napped fibers accounted for 95% of the surface of the leather (Yoshida, paragraph 0042). Additionally, since Yoshida teaches that the fiber constituting the plush accounts for 70-100% of the surface of the suede-like artificial leather, it is reasonable for one of ordinary art to expect that the area ratio of the elastomer is within the claimed range.
Alternatively, regarding the claimed content of the polymeric elastic material, the area ratio, and the napped fiber length, note that 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In the event it is shown that Yoshida does not disclose the claimed invention with sufficient specificity, the invention is obvious because Yoshida discloses the claimed constituents and discloses that they may be used alternatively or in combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights