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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/15/2025 and 02/7/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (JPS49108204A) [IDS dated: 01/15/2025], herein JPS49.
The citations herein refer to the translation provided by applicant.
In regards to claims 1-2, 4-5, 9 and 11, JPS49 teaches a surface treatment for a leather substrate comprising a polyurethane and a polyamino acid (having at least 3 active H as hydroxyl groups) [Abstract, lines 141-215, 248-259-Example 1].
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klostermann et al. (US 20220306861 A1), herein Klostermann.
In regards to claims 1, 4-5, 7-8 and 11-13, Klostermann teaches a surface treatment and leather comprising a polyamine (having at least 2 amino groups) and polyurethane [Abstract, claims 18, 25, 29, 30, 35, 0001-0003, 0018, 0042-0043]
In regards to claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-9 and 11-13, Klostermann teaches a surface treatment and leather comprising a polyalkanolamine-based carboxylic acid derivative (having at least 3 OH groups and 2 amino groups ) and polyurethane [Abstract, claims 18, 25, 28-30 35, 0001-0003, 0018, 0031, 0035-36].
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9 and 12 are rejected under 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim Myoung Joo (KR102056648B1) [IDS dated: 01/15/2025], herein Joo.
The citations herein refer to the translation provided by applicant.
In regards to claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9 and 12, Joo teaches a coating for leather comprising polyphenol (having 3 or more hydroxy groups, polyhydric phenol) and a resin [claim 1, 0002, 0009, 0011].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas et al. (US 20180244827 A1), herein Lucas.
In regards to claims 1-2, 3, 5 and 9-10, Lucas teaches a coating for leather comprising a polymer dispersion and dipropylene glycol (having 3 or more hydroxy groups and a glycerin based compound) [0099, 0100, 0105, 0137].
Lucas differs from claims 1 and 3 by teaching a variety of compounds having active hydrogens such that a glycerin-based compound like dipropylene glycol is not anticipated. However, it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed any of the compounds taught by Lucas, including dipropylene glycol. The motivation for doing so is that the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim Myoung Joo (KR102056648B1) [IDS dated: 01/15/2025], herein Joo, as applied to claim 1 above.
The citations herein refer to the translation provided by applicant.
In regards to claim 4 and 11, Joo teaches the resin for the coating for the leather is a urethane resin [0012].
Joo differs from claim 4 by teaching a variety of resins such that a urethane resin is not anticipated. However, it would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed any of the resins taught by Joo, including urethane. The motivation for doing so is that the “selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [supports] a prima facie obviousness determination.” See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 6, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPS49108204A [IDS dated: 01/15/2025], herein JPS49, as applied to claims 4, 9 and 11 above, and further in view of Kim Young Goo (KR101228379B1), herein Goo.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of (KR101228379B1). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
In regards to claims 6, 14 and 16, JPS49 teaches a coated leather but does not expressly teach the leather is laminated to a polyurethane foam to form a cushioning composite.
Goo teaches a method of laminating a leather to a polyurethane foam to form a cushioning composite [0001, 0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have laminated the treated leather of JS49 to a polyurethane foam as taught by Goo. One would have been motivated to do so as Goo teaches thus is a conventionally known method of using a treated leather and as it would have been the simple substitution of one leather for another one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 6, 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klostermann et al. (US 20220306861 A1), herein Klostermann, as applied to claims 5, 9 and 11-13, above, and further in view of Kim Young Goo (KR101228379B1), herein Goo.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of (KR101228379B1). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
In regards to claims 6, 14 and 16-18, Klostermann teaches a coated leather but does not expressly teach the leather is laminated to a polyurethane foam to form a cushioning composite.
Goo teaches a method of laminating a leather to a polyurethane foam to form a cushioning composite [0001, 0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have laminated the treated leather of Klostermann to a polyurethane foam as taught by Goo. One would have been motivated to do so as Goo teaches thus is a conventionally known method of using a treated leather and as it would have been the simple substitution of one leather for another one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 6, 14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim Myoung Joo (KR102056648B1) [IDS dated: 01/15/2025], herein Joo, as applied to claims 5, 9 and 11-12, above, and further in view of Kim Young Goo (KR101228379B1), herein Goo.
In regards to claims 6, 14 and 16-17, Joo teaches a coated leather but does not expressly teach the leather is laminated to a polyurethane foam to form a cushioning composite.
Goo teaches a method of laminating a leather to a polyurethane foam to form a cushioning composite [0001, 0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have laminated the treated leather of Joo to a polyurethane foam as taught by Goo. One would have been motivated to do so as Goo teaches thus is a conventionally known method of using a treated leather and as it would have been the simple substitution of one leather for another one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas et al. (US 20180244827 A1), herein Lucas, as applied to claims 5, 9 and 10, above, and further in view of Kim Young Goo (KR101228379B1), herein Goo.
In regards to claims 6, 14-15, Lucas teaches a coated leather but does not expressly teach the leather is laminated to a polyurethane foam to form a cushioning composite.
Goo teaches a method of laminating a leather to a polyurethane foam to form a cushioning composite [0001, 0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have laminated the treated leather of Lucas to a polyurethane foam as taught by Goo. One would have been motivated to do so as Goo teaches thus is a conventionally known method of using a treated leather and as it would have been the simple substitution of one leather for another one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights