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 and Species 1 from each of Species Groups 1 and 2 in the reply filed on 6/30/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,932,056 to Mark in view of USPAP 2022/0167705 to Stucko and further in view of (when necessary) USPAP 2013/0260111 to Kelsey.
Claim 1, Mark discloses a three-dimensional leather fabric, comprising: an elastic fabric; an adhesive pattern layer, formed by coating an adhesive glue on a surface of the elastic fabric being stretched, and comprising a plurality of spacings; and a leather, attached on the adhesive pattern layer, wherein when the elastic fabric restores to an original state to drive the plurality of spacings to be shrunk, a flat fitting part, that attached to the adhesive pattern layer, is formed on the leather and a three-dimensional embossed pattern is formed protrusively on the leather with the shrinking of the plurality of spacings (see entire document including column 1, lines 12-15 and column 3, line 42 through column 6, line 26). Mark discloses that the adhesive may be non-uniformly applied to produce gathers and puckers, if desired (column 6, lines 4-26). In addition, Kelsey discloses that it is known in the art to form a 3D stretchable fabric laminate wherein adhesive is applied in a non-uniform pattern to result in an article with reduced noise production, improved insulation, and special reflection (see entire document including [0002] and [0046]-[0053]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the product of Mark with the claimed 3D structure, to provide an article with reduced noise production, improved insulation, and/or special reflection.
Mark does not appear to specifically mention the use of botanical (plant-based) leather but Stucko discloses that it is known in the art to use plant-based (botanical) leather to produce sustainable wearable items (see entire document including [0003], [0011] and [0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the leather of Mark from botanical leather, to provide a sustainable product.
Claim 2, Mark discloses that a lining fabric with suitable stretch characteristics may be attached on a side of the elastic fabric away from the adhesive pattern layer (column 5, lines 57-65). Mark does not appear to mention specific lining fabric construction but Mark does disclose that the elastic fabric may be woven, knit or nonwoven (column 4, lines 35-45). Considering that Mark does not limit the lining fabric construction, and since Mark discloses that it is known in the art to construct the product with woven, knit or nonwoven fabrics, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the lining fabric of Mark with any suitable fabric construction, such as woven, knit or nonwoven because it is 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 3, Mark discloses a fabric elongation range from 15% to 40% (column 4, lines 35-45). Mark discloses that the thickness of the laminate may be about 1.0 to 2.5 mm (paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5) and Stucko discloses a leather thickness of from 0.9 mm to 1.1 mm [0037]. Therefore, the applied prior art either teaches the claimed thicknesses or it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the laminate with any suitable layer thicknesses, such as claimed, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a thickness on the basis of its suitability and desired final product characteristics.
Claim 4, Mark does not appear to specifically mention the claimed adhesive pattern and size but Kelsey discloses that it is known in the art to apply adhesive with the claimed pattern and size ([0049]-[0051]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the adhesive in any suitable pattern and size, such as claimed, based on the desired physical appearance and attributes.
Claim 5, it is the examiner’s position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to the applicant to show an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if the applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show non-obviousness, the applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
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