DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 25, 2025 has been entered.
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 November 25, 2025 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) in view of Boucké (WO 2019/137966)1 and O’Connor (US 2005/0158503).
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) in view of Boucké (WO 2019/137966)2 and O’Connor (US 2005/0158503) 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 §112
The rejections of claims 67-68 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is overcome by the amendments to the claims filed November 25, 2025.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
The rejection of claims 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 57, 58, 61, 63, 67, and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/137966 issued to Boucké in view of JP 08-302978 issued to Gomi et al., US 3, 902,293 issued to Witt et al., and US 2010/0319294 issued to Courey et al. are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims filed November 25, 2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 47 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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