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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on February 20, 2026 has been entered. Claims 8 and 23 have been canceled. Claims 1 and 22 have been amended and no claims have been added. Claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 22 are pending.
The cancellation of claim 23 is sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection set forth in the previous Office Action.
The amendment to claims 1 and 22 is sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 103 rejection over Higgins et al. since the references did not explicitly specify that hot air bonding was part of the thermal bonding process. However, a new rejection based on Higgins et al. is set forth below. The teaching by Cochran, II et al. is replaced by KR 20150035138 A.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US 2003/0175475) and in view of KR 20150035138 A, Gardner et al. (2006/0204712), Avery (4,426,415), and The Air-Permeability of Non-Woven Fabrics, by Kothari et al.
Higgins teaches carpets comprising multilayer primary backings, wherein said multilayer primary backings provide dimensional stability (i.e., reinforcement) thereto (abstract). Suitable multilayer primary backings include two nonwoven layers sandwiching a woven or nonwoven stabilizing fiberglass scrim (sections [0163], [0165], and [0168] and Figures 2I, 2K, 3C, 3E’, 3F, 3G). Each of the layers of the multilayered primary backings may have a basis weight of about 0.1-5 osy (about 3.4-170 gsm), preferably about 1-3 osy (about 34-102 gsm) (section [0166]). The nonwoven layers of the primary backing may comprise any natural or synthetic fiber or blends (e.g., two types of mono-component fibers) thereof, including thermoplastic polymers such as polyester and polypropylene, and bicomponent fibers (section [0178]). In one embodiment, the fibers of the nonwoven layer have a denier of 1-8 (section [0172]).
Further, said nonwovens may be spunbond nonwovens (i.e., made by a spun-laid process) (section [0009]). While Higgins et al. discloses that the backing can be made of a spunbond nonwoven, Higgins et al. fails to teach the specific details of the spunbond process including in the fabric is thermal bonded using hot-air bonding. KR 20150035138 is drawn to a spunbond nonwoven material made to be a primary carpet backing. KR 20150035138 discloses that the spunbond web is manufactured by a heat-adhering method using hot air (abstract). Further, KR 20150035183 omits bonder and reduces resistance to tufting needles so the fabric has less needle abrasion after tufting (abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to bond the fibers in the spunbond layers disclosed by Higgins using hot-air bonding to have less resistance to tufting needles and less tufting needle abrasion.
Further, the composite multilayered primary backings are tufted with pile yarns to form a tufted carpet (abstract and Figures 7I and 7K). The tufted carpets may also comprise a precoat 121, an adhesive polymer coat 160, and a secondary backing 170 (sections [0219], [0223], and [0227] and Figures 7I and 7K). The secondary backing may be a composite multi-component backing (section [0011]). While Higgins does not explicitly teach the composite secondary backing comprises a reinforcement layer, it is well understood in the carpet art that a main function of secondary backings is to provide dimensional stability (i.e., reinforcement) to a tufted carpet. By its mere presence, a conventional secondary backing will necessarily provide at least some reinforcement to said tufted carpet and the addition of another layer to form a composite secondary backing will necessarily impart at least some degree of reinforcement due to its mere presence within the carpet backing.
Thus, While Higgins teaches tufted carpets with multilayer primary backing and secondary backing, Higgins fails to teach the (a) the first nonwoven layer has a weight of at least 60 gsm and the third nonwoven layer has a weight of at most 40 gsm and (b) the air permeability of the first layer is lower than that of the third layer.
Avery is drawn to carpet backings. Avery discloses a multilayer primary backing for tufted carpets comprising two or more layers of woven backing fabric, wherein the layers are of progressively finer gauge towards the carpet face (abstract). The bottommost layer is of a sufficiently course gauge (i.e., more open or porous) to allow for penetration of an adhesive backing, while the top layer is of a sufficiently finer gauge (i.e., less open or porous) to prevent adhesive from leaking though to the face during application thereof (e.g., latex bleed through) (abstract and col. 3, lines10-19). In one embodiment, the layers are made from the same materials but differ in weave density with the coarse layer having 11 picks per inch and the fine layer having 20 picks per inch (col. 3, lines 20-24). Thus, the layers with a lower weave density (i.e., the coarse secondary backing layer) would inherently have a lower fabric weight than the layer with the higher weave density (i.e., the finer primary backing layer). And if more than two layers are desired in the backing, then the backing can include intermediate layers that are of an intermediate gauge, such as 14 or 17 picks per inch (col. 3, lines 25-41). Avery teaches the permeability of the backing layer closer to the pile surface should be made from a finer structure, which would result in a lower permeability, than the layer farthest away from the pile surface which should be made from the coarsest structure, thereby having the highest air permeability properties. Having the backing layers having a progressively finer gauge towards the pile layer prevents the adhesive from leaking through to the face during production (column 2, lines 1 – 10).
Further, Gardner et al. is drawn to two-layer carpet backings (abstract). Gardner et al. is drawn to creating carpet backings with a secondary backing with a higher air permeability to allow for faster manufacturing speeds (paragraph 21). Further, the secondary backing should also prevent filler/binder from exuding from the underside of the carpet. Gardner et al. teaches that the secondary backing has a weight of 0.5 to 10 ounces per square yard (osy), which is equal to 16.9 to 339 gsm, and an air permeability of at least 220 cfm/sq ft (paragraph 22).
Thus, Avery and Gardner show that it is known in the art to use backings with different layers and to have layers with different air permeable properties. Further, the higher air permeability layers are farther away from the pile surface of the carpet.
Additionally, Kothari teaches that it is known in the art that controlling variables such as density, basis weight, and fiber diameter will allow one to control the porosity or air permeability of nonwoven fabrics. Kothari teaches the air permeability of nonwovens is impacted by basis weight, thickness, and fiber density of said nonwovens, as well as the diameter of the fibers employed therein (abstract, 2nd paragraph of section 1. Introduction, and Table 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Higgins backing embodiment comprising two nonwoven layers sandwiching a woven or nonwoven stabilizing fiberglass scrim, to make the first nonwoven layer have a less permeable structure, to produce a backing structure that prevents the adhesive material from exuding into the pile layer and allows the adhesive to dry quickly so that the carpet manufacturing can be faster, as taught by Avery and Gardner et al. It would be within the general skill level of the art to use known techniques as taught by Kothari, i.e., controlling fiber size and basis weight, to modify the nonwoven layers within the structure of Higgins et al., to produce a permeability gradient between the nonwoven layers as suggested by Avery and Gardner et al.
With respect to the specific claimed basis weight ranges, said ranges would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In particular, as set forth above, Higgins teaches each of the layers of the multilayered primary backings may have a basis weight of about 0.1-5 osy (about 3.4-170 gsm), preferably about 1-3 osy (about 34-102 gsm). Additionally, as set forth above, Avery teaches the denser fabrics result in less permeability and bleed through of adhesive. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to select a basis weight of the third layer to be chosen from the lower part of the range disclosed by Higgins, i.e., less than 40 gsm, and the basis weight of first layer to be heavier than the third layer so that it will have a lower air permeability than the third layer, i.e., greater than 60 gsm, since Avery and Gardner suggest a gradient of air permeability is desired. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the overall weight of the backing layers must be controlled to produce a desirable basis weight in the final carpet product. Therefore, claims 1, 5-7, 11, 12, and 15-20 are rejected as being obvious over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 2, upon modification of the Higgins invention with the teachings of Avery as set forth above, the basis weight ratio of the first layer to the third layer would meet the claim limitation of at least 60:40. Hence, claim 2 is rejected along with parent claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, as set forth above, Kothari teaches the permeability of nonwovens can be controlled via fiber diameter. In order to provide a first nonwoven layer less porous than the third nonwoven layer, according to the teachings of Higgins and Avery, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select fibers having a smaller average diameter for the first layer than for the third layer, as taught by Kothari. Such a modification would have yielded predictable results to the skilled artisan (i.e., a more dense, less porous first nonwoven layer in comparison to the third nonwoven layer). Hence, claim 3 is also rejected as being obvious over the cited prior art.
It is noted that the claimed air permeabilities are examined as being properties of the fabric layers prior to producing the tufted carpet. While the final product will not have the recited air permeabilities, the layers will still have the various features such as fiber density, or basis weight that impact the air density. Thus, it will be given weight since it will impact the properties of the final product.
However, as argued above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and third nonwoven layers of Higgins to have a permeability gradient such that the first layer has a lower permeability than the third layer, as taught by Avery and Gardner et al., in order to prevent latex bleed through to the tufted pile face and allow the binder to dry relative quickly during processing. As set forth above, Gardner et al. suggests that the permeability of the secondary backing should be at least 220 cfm/sq ft. and it should be high enough to allow the binder to evaporate off quickly to maintain higher processing speeds (abstract and paragraph 6) and prevent filler/binder mixture from causing damage (paragraph 7). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to optimize the secondary backing layer to have a higher permeability while still limiting how much binder or filler material can seep through the layer. Further, the permeability of the first nonwoven should be lower than the permeability of the secondary backing layer and also be high enough to prevent any of the binder material from seeping into the pile layer as taught by Avery (column 4, lines 1 – 5).
It would also have been obvious to select specific values of air permeability for each layer as claimed since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215. In particular, as set forth above, Kothari teaches various parameters affect air permeability of nonwovens, such as basis weight, thickness, and density of said nonwovens and the diameter of the fibers employed therein (abstract, 2nd paragraph of section 1. Introduction, and Table 1). Thus, absent a showing of unexpected results achieved therefrom or other evidence of non-obviousness, the recited air permeabilities of the intermediate nonwoven layers are held to be obvious over the cited prior art. Therefore, exception (a) is rejected. Thus, claims 9, 10, 21, and 22 are rejected.
With regards to claim 23, the applicant teaches that the surface coverage is calculated based on the equation A = x*d, which is defined in the disclosure (specification, page 7). The calculation uses the diameter, linear density, and basis weight of the fabric to calculate the surface coverage. Thus, fabrics with similar basis weights and fiber sizes will result in similar surface coverages by the fabric. Since Higgins teaches using spunbond fabrics with similar basis weight, as set forth above, to create an permeability gradient between the layers, as set forth above, it would have been obvious to create fabrics with similar degrees of surface coverage to minimize the amount of bleed through into the pile layer. Thus, claim 23 is rejected.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins, KR 20150035138, Avery, Gardner et al., and Kothari et al., as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of US 2012/0244310 issued to Visscher.
Regarding claim 4, while the prior art of Higgins, Avery, and Kothari suggest the use of fibers having a smaller fiber diameter for the first nonwoven layer than the third layer, said prior art fails to teach the fibers of the first layer have a diameter of at most 50 microns and/or the fibers of the third layer have a diameter of at least 30 microns. However, fibers of such diameters are known in the art of multilayer nonwoven primary backings.
For example, Visscher discloses a primary carpet backing comprising a composite of at least a first nonwoven layer and a second nonwoven layer, wherein said nonwovens comprise a uniform composition of randomly laid fibers (abstract). Both nonwoven layers include at least two different polymers, wherein at least one polymer of the first layer is different than a polymer of the second layer (abstract). The primary carpet backing may be tufted with yarns to obtain a griege carpet having pile yarns on a face side and back stitches on the back side (section [0009]). A precoat, a heavy coat (i.e., polymer coat), and/or a secondary backing may be applied to the greige carpet to provide tuft bind (sections [0011] and [0013]).
The primary backing may include an additional layer comprising a woven layer, a nonwoven layer, a scrim layer, a film layer, or a layer of unidirectional filaments or yarns (section [0031]). Preferably, the additional layer is positioned between the first nonwoven layer and the second nonwoven layer (section [0031]). The additional layer is employed to provide supplemental reinforcement to the primary carpet backing, to further improve the stitch holding performance, and/or to further improve the barrier against latex bleed through (section [0032]).
The nonwoven layers are made by a spun-laid process of thermoplastic polymers (e.g., polyester, polypropylene, and polyamide) (sections [0022] and [0033]-[0035]). The different polymers of each layer may be present in separate fibers (i.e., bifilament nonwoven layer), or within the same fiber (i.e., nonwoven of bicomponent fibers) (sections [0024] and [0025]). In one embodiment, the first nonwoven layer is a bifilament nonwoven and the second nonwoven layer comprises bicomponent fibers (section [0026]). The fibers have a linear density of 1-25 dtex (abstract), which correlates to a diameter of at about 11-53 microns for polyamide 6 (PA6), about 10-48 microns for polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and about 12-58 microns for polypropylene (PP). For the exemplary linear density of 15 dtex (sections [0034] and [0035]), the corresponding diameter is 41 microns for PA6, 37 microns for PET, and 45 microns for PP.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select fibers having the claimed ranges (i.e., at least 30 microns and/or at most 50 microns) for the first and/or third layers, wherein fibers of the first layer have a smaller diameter than those of the third layer. Such a modification would have yielded predictable results to the skilled artisan (i.e., modify the permeability thereof, as taught by Kothari, which would result in an improved barrier to latex, as taught by Avery). Therefore, absent a showing of unexpected results achieved therefrom or other evidence of non-obviousness, claim 4 is rejected as being obvious over the cited prior art.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al., KR 20150035138, Avery, Gardner et al., and Kothari et al., as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of US 5,470,648 issued to Pearlman et al. and US 2011/0292641 issued to Van Herpen et al.
Van Herpen discloses a carpet comprising a primary backing tufted with pile yarns, an adhesive layer, and a secondary backing (abstract and sections [0022] and [0049]). The secondary backing may comprise a plurality of layers and provides strength (i.e., reinforcement) to the carpet (sections [0056] and [0060]). The secondary backing layer has an air permeability of at least about 250 ft3/ft2·min (cfm/ft2), most preferably 350-800 m3/m2·min (cfm/ft2) as measured by ASTM d-737 (section [0062]). The air permeability is sufficiently high to allow for high binder cure rates (sections [0062] and [0065]). Suitable secondary backings are fabrics have apertures for air passage and are commercially available, such as those sold as ActionBac® (sections [0060], [0066], [0067], and [0071]).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an appropriate scrim fabric and nonwoven fabrics to produce a secondary backing having a sufficiently high air permeability (e.g., at least 1000 l/m2·s (125 cfm/ft2) as measured by ISO 9237:1995), to achieve a desired adhesive cure rate as taught by Van Herpen. Such a modification would have yielded predictable results to the skilled artisan. Therefore, absent a showing of unexpected results achieved therefrom or other evidence of non-obviousness, claim 13 is rejected as being obvious over the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 14, the cited prior art fails to teach a suitable fiber size for the fibers of the secondary backing nonwovens. Yet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select nonwoven fibers have a diameter of at least 30 microns in order to achieve a desired nonwoven density, weight, and degree of openness (i.e., permeability). One of ordinary skill in the art understands the relationships between fiber diameter and fabric density, weight, and permeability. For example, all else being equal, an increase in fiber diameter produces a coarser, denser, heavier fabric. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215. Thus, absent a showing of unexpected results achieved therefrom or other evidence of non-obviousness, claim 14 is rejected as being obvious over the cited prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to the applicant’s argument’s including Cochran, III et al. this reference has been withdrawn from the rejection to address the previous amendments to the claims. Thus, the rejection to Cochran, III et al. are not commensurate in scope with the current rejection. Additionally, the arguments drawn to the prior art not teaching using hot air bonding are not persuasive since the rejection has been amended to add a teaching of why one of ordinary skill in the art would choose to use a hot air bonded spunbonded fabric as a backing material for the carpet of Higgins et al. Thus, those arguments are not persuasive.
Additionally, the applicant argues that the air permeability would produce non-obvious properties (response, page 2 – 3). Gardner is relied on for the general discussion related to how using different levels of air permeability in a backing layer will impact the carpet structure. It is not relied on to provide particular features of related to the method of bonding the layers. Since the features of the spunbond fabric inherently disclose using filaments and thermally bonded filaments, these references do not need to teach those features. Further, it is noted that the applicant argues that heated needles, bonding with heated rolls and other heating methods are different from using hot-air bonding. It is true that the method or thermal bonding can have different impact on the structure of the claimed product. However, those arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention since while the claim recites that hot air is used, the claim does not explicitly exclude other thermal bonds aren’t used in combination with the hot air. For instance, heated needles and rollers can be combined with hot air steps. Thus, the claim only requires hot air is part of the thermal bonding method, but does not specifically exclude any other thermal bonding steps from also being used. Further, while the thermal method can create some variations in the final structure, this is a method limitation in a product claim. The claim or specification do not clearly define what the structural limitations are required and what features are excluded by reciting the bonding method is hot air bonded. When a product by process limitation is recited in a product claim the applicant must provide evidence to clearly distinguish the claimed method from other thermal methods that could be used. The arguments suggest that some methods would impact the air permeability, however, the claim only recites that the layers have different ranges of air permeabilities. The specific permeabilities are claimed and it is not clear that what could be small changes in permeability would significantly impact the permeability to be outside the claimed range or create a patentable distinct product. The applicant would need to provide evidence to show that the method creates a distinct product commensurate in the scope with the claim.
The prior art teaches the general combination of layers and provides a teaching for motivation to modify the permeability properties to be within the claimed range. Further, the layers are known to be made using hot air bonding. The features of the claimed product are known in the art as set forth above. The applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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 Jenna Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-1472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday, 10am - 4pm.
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.
jlj
April 30, 2026
/JENNA L JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights