DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments submitted on July 23, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently claims 1-46, 49, 52, 54-56, 59-60, 62, and 64-68 are cancelled, resulting in claims 47-48, 50-51, 53, 57-58, 61, and 63 pending for examination.
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 47-48, 50-51, 53, 61, and 63, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poteet (US 4853280)1 in view of Boucké (WO 2019/137966)1 and O’Connor (US 2005/0158503)1.
With respect to claims 47-48, 50, and 63, Poteet teaches a floor covering 14 comprising a facing layer 21 (pile yarns) with a primary backing 23 (base layer), a polyurethane foam layer 18 (elastic layer), and a release backing layer 48 (col. 5, lines 42-51). The polyurethane foam is cellular (col. 4, lines 1-5) and thus necessarily has an open and/or closed cell structure. The floor covering may be applied to its underlying surface with pressure sensitive, permanent tack adhesives which are easy to remove (col. 6, lines 15-25). Pressure sensitive adhesives are necessarily resiliently compressible and in the final product are at least partially cured. It is noted that it is known in the art that polyurethane foam is elastic (Boucké; page 3, lines 16-29) and that an adhesive coving the bottom surface of the carpet would necessarily be present on the edges/corners of the bottom surface.
Poteet is silent as to the carpet tile having two side edges which are provided with interconnecting profiles, each of the interconnecting profiles comprising a tongue profile or a groove profile.
Boucké discloses a tile, in particular a carpet tile, comprising a base layer, preferably a primary carpet base having pile yarns projecting upwardly therefrom and an adhesive backing structure comprising an elastic layer defining a lower surface of the tile (page 1, lines 27-31 and page 2, lines 9-13). The tile may comprise complimentary coupling parts, such as tongue and groove profiles, along opposite tile edges and preferably made integral with an intermediate layer of the tile (page 8, line 15-page 9, line 10). One of the coupling parts may comprise an upward tongue, an upward flank, and an upward groove, while the other coupling part comprises a downward tongue, a downward flank, and a downward groove (page 8, line 31-page 9, line 10). A plurality of tiles may be coupled to provide a tile covering (page 13, lines 29-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carpet of Poteet to have complementary coupling parts, such as tongue and groove profiles, along opposite edges and made integral with an intermediate layer in order to allow coupling to adjacent carpet tiles to provide a tile covering.
With respect to the adhesive covering at least part of the interconnecting profiles, as described above Poteet teaches that the bottom of the floor covering is covered with the pressure sensitive adhesive (col. 6, lines 15-25). Therefore, the ordinary artisan would expect the portion of the interconnecting profile of Boucké identified below to be covered by the pressure sensitive adhesive on the bottom.
PNG
media_image1.png
324
1010
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Poteet in view of Boucké is silent as to the adhesive layer being hydrophobic.
O’Connor teaches surface coverings in the form of a strip or mat (paragraph [0033]) which includes a top layer of carpet material (paragraph [0036]), an intermediate layer which may be closed cell foam (paragraph [0038]), and a hot melt pressure sensitive adhesive layer (paragraph [0039]). The adhesive layer is water insoluble to resist deterioration and hydrophobic to prevent water from contaminating the bond between the adhesive and underlying surface (paragraph [0039]).
Since both Poteet in view of Boucké and O’Connor teach surface coverings comprising a carpet top layer, a foam intermediate layer, and a pressure sensitive adhesive bottom layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pressure sensitive adhesive of Poteet in view of Boucké to be hydrophobic in order to prevent water from contaminating the bond between the adhesive and the underlying surface.
With respect to claim 51, Poteet and Boucké and O’Connor teaches all the limitations of claim 47 above.
Poteet is silent as to a removable protective film being attached onto the adhesive layer.
Boucké teaches a removable protective film may be attached to the lower surface of the elastic layer to protect the layer during transportation and storage (page 4, lines 32-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carpet tile of Poteet to include a removable protective film on the bottom, i.e., on the adhesive layer, in order to protect the lower surface during transportation and storage.
With respect to claim 53, Poteet in view of Boucké and O’Connor teaches all the limitations of claim 47 above. Poteet in view of Boucké and O’Connor does not expressly teach the adhesive strength of the adhesive layer being at least 170 g/cm2. It is reasonable to presume that the adhesive strength is inherent to Poteet in view of Boucké and O’Connor. Support for said presumption is found in that the Poteet in view of Boucké and O’Connor teaches the structure and material of the claimed invention as described above. For example, the instant specification on page 11 describes the adhesive layer as a pressure sensitive adhesive. As described in the rejection of claim 47 above, Poteet similarly teaches the use of a pressure sensitive adhesive (col. 6, lines 15-25). Pages 3-4 of the instant specification also discuss the adhesive strength being suitable to allow for the adhered product to be detached after use. Similarly, Poteet teaches the pressure sensitive adhesive allows the carpet to be easily removed (col. 6, lines 15-25). Since the pressure sensitive adhesive of Poteet in view of Boucké and O’Connor is made of the same material and has a similar purpose as disclosed by the instant specification, it is expected to have the same properties as the claimed invention. See MPEP 2112.
With respect to claim 61, Poteet in view of Boucké and O’Connor teaches all the limitations of claim 47 above. Boucké further teaches an antimicrobial agent may be applied to the carpet tile as a topical chemical agent (page 6, lines 23-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carpet tile of Poteet to include a topical chemical agent such as an antimicrobial agent in order to protect the carpet from microbes.
Claims 57-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poteet (US 4853280)1 in view of Boucké (WO 2019/137966)2 and O’Connor (US 2005/0158503)1 as applied to claim 47 above, and further in view of Gomi (JP 08-302978)1,3.
With respect to claim 57, Poteet in view of Boucké and O’Connor teaches all the limitations of claim 47 above.
Poteet in view of Boucké and O’Connor is silent as to the adhesive layer having a plurality of superficial suction holes formed in at least a lower surface of the adhesive layer, wherein the superficial suction holes are open in a direction facing away from the base layer and closed in a direction facing the base layer.
Gomi teaches a flooring material with an anti-slip layer on its underside (paragraph [0004]). The anti-slip layer is preferably a self-adhesive layer which is a foamed synthetic resin material, the foam being made of closed cells where the cells on the surface form a suction cup structure with openings communicating with the outside air (paragraph [0004]). The self-adhesive layer may be a pressure-sensitive adhesive (paragraph [0008]). The anti-slip layer allows the floor tile to be applied without using an adhesive or glue (paragraph [0001], [0009]).
Since both Poteet in view of Boucké and O’Connor and Gomi teach floor tiles comprising a bottom layer of pressure sensitive adhesive, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pressure sensitive adhesive of Poteet in view of Boucké and O’Connor to be a foam comprising closed cells where the cells on the surface form a suction cup structure in order to provide an anti-slip layer without the need for additional adhesives or glue.
It is noted that a foam comprising closed cells where the cells on the surface form a suction cup structure that communicates with the outside air meets the structural limitation of superficial suction holes open in a direction facing away from the base layer and closed in a direction facing the base layer.
With respect to claim 58, Poteet in view of Boucké, O’Connor, and Gomi teaches all the limitations of claim 57 above.
Poteet, O’Connor, and Gomi are silent as to the adhesive layer having a ratio of a void footprint to a material footprint of at least 4.
Boucké further teaches suction holes defining a void footprint and the material of the elastic layer defines a material footprint, wherein a surface area ratio between the void footprint and the material footprint is at least 4, preferably at least 5, preferably at least 6, thereby allowing the tile to be quickly and relatively firmly attached to a support surface and removed therefrom (page 2, lines 2-9).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the suction cup structure in the foamed pressure sensitive adhesive layer of Poteet in view of Boucké, O’Connor, and Gomi to have a ratio of the void foot print to the material footprint to be at least 4 in order to allow the carpet to be quickly and relatively firmly attached to a support surface and removed therefrom.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments submitted on July 23, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 2 of the response Applicant submits that relying on Poteet as the primary reference for a claim directed specifically to a carpet tile requires an inferential leap not grounded in the disclosure of the reference itself.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it. If the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the preamble is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02. Any terminology in the preamble that limits the structure of the claimed invention must be treated as a claim limitation. The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the application to gain an understanding of what the inventors invented and intended to encompass by the claim as drafted without importing extraneous limitations from the specification. See MPEP 2111.02(I).
In the instant case, the structure suggested by the recitation of a “carpet tile” in claim 47 appears to be a base layer with pile yarns and a backing layer. As described in the rejection of claim 47 above, Poteet teaches these structural limitations. The instant specification does not provide specific dimensions or other structure that would differentiate the claimed carpet tile from the carpet disclosed by Poteet. Therefore the carpet of Poteet is interpreted as meeting the preamble limitation “carpet tile”.
Additionally, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case the modification of Poteet with Boucké suggests the use of the carpet of Poteet as carpet tiles.
On pages 2-3 of the response Applicant submits that the carpet of Poteet cannot be provided with the interconnecting profiles of Boucké because the carpet of Poteet has no suitable intermediate layer.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant submits that Boucké requires rigid or semi-rigid material, citing claim 27, however Boucké additionally teaches the intermediate layer may be flexible, and states that plastic materials, including polyurethane, are suitable (Boucké; page 7, lines 22-35). The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. The are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123. In the instant case, Boucké suggests the use of flexible materials as the intermediate layer comprising the interlocking profiles and does not have a rigidity requirement, therefore it is within the ambit of the ordinary artisan to provide the interconnecting profiles on the polyurethane foam layer of Poteet.
Alternatively, if the ordinary artisan determines the foamed polyurethane layer is insufficient to provide the interconnecting profiles of Boucké, it is within the ambit of the ordinary artisan to provide an intermediate layer as described by Boucké in the carpet of Poteet. This solution is already contemplated by Boucké which provides the intermediate layer situated between an elastic layer and the base (Boucké; page 7, lines 22-24), where the elastic layer may be a foam material such as polyurethane foam (Boucké; page 20, line 26 – page 21, line 6).
It is noted that it is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference … rather the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. It is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the rejection under review. Combining the teachings of the references does not involved an ability to combine their specific structures. However, the claimed combination cannot change the principle of operation of the primary reference or render the reference inoperable for its intended purpose. See MPEP 2145(III).
In the instant case, as discussed above, Boucké is open to using flexible rigid, semi-rigid, and flexible material as the intermediate layer comprising the interconnecting profiles. Additionally, Poteet does not exclude the use of additional layers from its carpet and after the combination is still suitable for use as a carpet, as evidenced by Boucké being directed to a carpet. Therefore the proposed combination does not change the principle of operation of the primary reference or render the reference inoperable for its intended purpose.
On pages 3-4 of the response Applicant submits that one of skill in the art would not expect the PSA to be present on the edges/corners of the carpet of Poteet and the interconnecting profiles of the carpet tile of Boucké. Particularly, on page 3 of the response Applicant submits that the Office Action suggests that the bottom side of the panel 301 of Boucké is also to be considered part of the interconnective profiles or coupling parts of Boucké, however, the coupling parts in Boucké are part of the intermediate layer, not the bottom layer.
These arguments are not persuasive. As acknowledged by Applicant, the PSA is spread of the floor and the carpet is placed on top (col. 7, lines 22-26). Regardless of whether the PSA is applied to the floor or the carpet, once the carpet is attached to the adhesive the claimed structure is met. Additionally, the adhesive is referred to as a layer by Poteet (see e.g., col. 8, lines 7-8). Poteet consistently uses the term “layer” to refer to materials that fully cover any above and below layers (see e.g., col. 3, lines 17-21 and FIG. 1). Furthermore, Poteet further teaches that such adhesives, including PSAs, are well known and may be used for carpet installation in accordance with manufacture’s instructions and recommendations (col. 6, lines 15-25). It is therefore evident to the ordinary artisan that the PSA may cover substantially the entire bottom side of the elastic layer which would necessarily include the PSA being present on the edges and/or corners of the elastic layer.
With respect to the PSA covering at least part of the interconnecting profiles, it is noted that lines 8-9 of claim 47 state that the adhesive layer may be affixed either directly or indirectly to the bottom side of the elastic layer. In the case the interconnective profiles of Boucké are modified to be present on the foamed PU layer, then the PSA will be directly affixed to at least a part of the interconnecting profiles in the area identified in the annotated Fig. 5 of Boucké. In the case an intermediate layer with the interconnecting profiles is provided in the carpet of Poteet the PSA will be indirectly attached via the elastic layer to at least a part of the interconnecting profiles in the area identified in the annotated Fig. 5 of Boucké.
On pages 4-5 of the response Applicant submits with respect to claim 53 that functional similarity does not imply substantially identical structural composition, and that an adhesive strength of at least 170 g/cm2 is not a generic property of all pressure sensitive adhesives.
These arguments are not persuasive. In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art. See MPEP 2112(IV). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially similar in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
In the instant case, the inherency rejection did not rely solely on the adhesive of the prior art performing the same function as the claimed adhesive as alleged. The inherency position also found that Poteet in view of Boucké and O’Connor use the same material, particularly a PSA material. Applicant submits that the claimed adhesive strength is not a generic property of all PSAs, however the instant specification does not disclose how the specific PSA claimed is modified to arrive at the claimed adhesive strength. Page 4, lines 7-14 of the instant specification discuss how the viscosity of the PSA affects the adhesive strength of the PSA. However, an appropriate viscosity range to provide a PSA with the claimed adhesive strength is not disclosed. The specification does not provide any other compositional details which are identified as affecting the adhesive strength of the PSA and the arguments do not present evidence to show that the PSA of Poteet in view of Boucké and O’Connor does not necessarily have the claimed adhesive strength.
The adhesive strength is also identified on page 3, lines 16-19 of the specification as filed as providing an attractive peeling strength which allows an average user to remove a carpet tile from the support surface to which it is attached with moderate effort. As discussed in the inherency rejection above, Poteet similarly teaches the use of a PSA to allow a carpet to be similarly removed (col. 6, lines 15-25). Since a suitable viscosity of the PSA to provide the claimed adhesive strength is not disclosed, the Examiner determined that the function of the PSA is relevant because the instant specification discloses that the viscosity of the PSA has a direct affect on adhesive strength, which in turn has a direct effect on whether the object can be attached again after use (page 4, lines 6-14). Therefore the ability of Poteet’s carpet to be removed in a similar manner to the claimed invention is a measure of the adhesive strength of the PSA. As such since the adhesive of the prior art uses the same material (PSA) and it is capable of the same function (removable), it is reasonable to presume the adhesive strength of the PSA is inherent to the prior art.
Once a reference teaching a product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the Applicant. See MPEP 2112(V). As discussed above, neither the instant specification nor the response provides evidence to show that the prior art combination does not necessarily have the claimed adhesive strength. Therefore the inherency rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
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 on 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.
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Previously presented
2 Previously presented
3 Machine translation used as reference
