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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1, 2, 4-15 and 17-22 are pending. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, 4-15, 21 and 22 are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 9/1/2026 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims based upon Gilmer in view of Takizuka.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment, filed 9/1/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of the claims over Gilmer in view of Takizuka have been withdrawn. In particular, as evidenced by Applicant’s declaration, the leatherlike texture would not be an inherent feature. Furthermore, the prior art fails to teach or suggest forming a leatherlike texture and the selection of components to achieve both a gloss and leatherlike texture as claimed.
However, Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has necessitated the new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection presented below.
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.
1. Claims 1, 4-15 and 21 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.
The term “leatherlike” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “leatherlike” 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. It is unclear exactly what range of textures would constitute a leatherlike texture. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 4-15 and 21 depend from claim 1 and are indefinite for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
2. Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
3. Claim 22 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the method as claimed. In particular, the prior art fails to teach or suggest selection of the specific components, such as a high boiling point catalyst blocker and the cured coating exhibiting a leather like texture as defined by coating bumps and also having a gloss value of 80 GU or greater.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 2, 4-15 and 17-22 are pending.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 4-15 and 21 are rejected.
Claim 2 is objected to.
Claim 22 is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
September 22, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
