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 and claim amendments submitted on October 20, 2025 are entered into the file. Currently claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11, 27-28, and 30 are amended, claims 4-5, 7, 10, and 12-21 are cancelled, and claims 31-35 are new, resulting in claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11, and 22-35 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11, 23-30, 32-33, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heine (US 4820566)1,2 in view of Combs (US 6468622)2 and Magee (US 2002/0012764)2.
With respect to claims 1-3 and 30, Heine teaches tufted carpeting material useful as an entry mat to remove dirt and water from shoes (col. 1, lines 13-15). Generally the tuft carpet comprises a backing having thereon a plurality of tufts of fine denier fibers and a plurality of tufts of coarse denier fibers (yarn filaments of first yarn) (col. 2, lines 43-48). The fine denier fibers preferably are about 15 to 50 denier per filament (dpf) and the coarse denier fibers (yarn filaments of first yarn) are preferably about 150 to 500 dpf (col. 3, lines 7-9). The areas of tufts of fine denier fibers and the areas of tufts of coarse denier fibers (yarn filaments of first yarn) may be of the same height (col. 3, lines 19-21). Since the fibers are tufted into the backing, they will necessarily extend outwardly from the face surface of the backing in a direction moving away from the primary backing to define a face structure, as evidenced by the tufted fibers having a height. The fine and coarse fibers are tufted in the form of yarns comprising a bundle of fibers (col. 3, lines 49-55; col. 5, lines 9-15; col. 6, lines 20-25).
Heine is silent as to a second yarn forming first and second tuft portions passing through first and second openings of the primary backing.
Combs teaches a washable track control mat comprising tufts with at least one tuft being made of a yarn that is made of at least one fine denier fiber (yarn filaments of second yarn) and at least one coarse denier fiber (col. 3, lines 60-67). The yarn is made by twisting together the coarse denier fiber with the fine denier fiber (yarn filaments of second yarn) (col. 3, lines 60-67). The mat includes a substrate for receiving the tufts (col. 60-67). The coarse fiber ranges in denier from 100 to 2000 denier per filament (dpf) and the fine fibers (yarn filaments of second yarn) range from 15 to 100 dpf (col. 1, lines 62-65). The twist of the fine fibers (yarn filaments of second yarn) help support the coarse fibers within the body of yarn so that the coarse fiber does not lie down when the mat is finished (col. 5, lines 8-15).
The fine fiber dpf range pf Combs substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claims 1-3 and 30. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Combs, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Since both Heine and Combs teach carpets comprising fine and coarse denier fibers, 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 coarse denier fibers (yarn filaments of first yarn) to be twisted with fine denier fibers having a dpf range of 15-100 (yarn filaments of second yarn) in order to ensure the coarse denier fibers (yarn filaments of first yarn) do not lie down when the mat is finished. Since the coarse denier fibers (yarn filaments of first yarn) are twisted together with the fine denier fibers (yarn filaments of second yarn) and cut to form the tuft, the height of the first yarn and the second yarn will be the same (see e.g., Figs. 1 and 2 of Combs).
Heine in view of Combs is silent as to a color pattern comprising ink or dye printed on the face structure of the carpeting material.
Magee teaches a method of applying color, pattern, design, and/or the like by means of a jet dye process or any other secondary or post patten application process including but not limited to transfer printing, silk screen printing, and rotary printing, etc. to preferably a woven carpet (paragraph [0002]). With the process an unlimited variety of elements can be created on a single piece of woven carpet substrate or base, maximizing the efficiency of the process, minimizing the cost, and providing for mass customization (paragraph [0048]). The carpet may be dyed using a Millitron jet dye or printing machine such as inkjet printing (paragraphs [0067], [0071]). Magee acknowledges the design can be created on multiple weave constructions and any pile type (paragraph [0020]).
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 Heine in view of Combs to include a print an ink pattern or a dye pattern as described by Magee on the face of the carpet in order to efficiently provide a final carpet with a desired design at a lower cost.
Heine in view of Combs and Magee does not explicitly teach that the process of tufting forms backstitches which pass through first and second openings of the primary backing, however it is submitted that it is known in the art that the tufting process forms first and second openings in the primary backing through formation of a backstitch connecting the tufts. See for example Fig. 1 of Combs which shows the yarn 14 tufted through a substrate 20 (col. 4, lines 56-65). Since the coarse denier fibers (yarn filaments of first yarn) are twisted together with the fine denier fibers (yarn filaments of second yarn) they will necessarily pass through the same first and second openings in the primary backing when forming the tufts and backstitches.
With respect to claim 6, Heine in view of Combs and Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As discussed above, the coarse denier fibers (yarn filaments of first yarn) are defined by denier per filament, and are used in plurality to form a yarn (col. 3, lines 7-9 and 49-55; col. 5, lines 9-15; col. 6, lines 20-25). Therefore the fibers are considered monofilaments.
With respect to claim 8, Heine in view of Combs and Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As discussed above, the carpet of Heine in view of Combs and Magee includes a desired pattern on the face surface. The limitation “wherein at least one yarn tuft of the plurality of yarn tufts comprises: a first portion in which the color pattern imparts color to an exterior surface of the first portion; and a second portion in which the color pattern does not impart color to an exterior surface of the second portion” is an aesthetic design choice directed to matters relating to ornamentation only which has no mechanical function, and therefore cannot be relied upon to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(I). It is within the ambit of the ordinary artisan to choose a design or pattern which provides a tuft with a colored portion and an uncolored portion.
With respect to claims 9 and 11, Heine in view of Combs and Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. With respect to the presence of a third yarn, the fine denier fibers of Heine have a fineness of about 15 to 50 denier per filament (dpf) (col. 3, lines 7-9). Heine further teaches the tufts of fine denier fibers (third yarn) are in areas separate from areas of tufts of coarse denier fibers (first yarn modified with Combs to be twisted with the second yarn) (col. 2, lines 60-62).
With respect to claim 23, Heine in view of Combs and Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Heine further teaches the tufted carpet may include a secondary backing which provides weight or body to the carpet material such as polyurethane or rubber latex that is foamed or patterned such as in a waffle pattern (cushion) (col. 5, lines 52-63).
With respect to claim 24, Heine in view of Combs and Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. In Examples 1-4 Heine further teaches the use of a 6500 denier yarn of coarse denier fibers (first yarn) (col. 6, lines 22-23).
With respect to claim 25, Heine in view of Combs and Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Since the coarse denier fibers (yarn filaments of first yarn) of Heine are twisted together with the fine denier fibers (yarn filaments of second yarn) of Combs and cut to form the tuft, the height of the first yarn and the second yarn will be the same (see e.g., Figs. 1 and 2 of Combs).
With respect to claims 26 and 35, Heine in view of Combs and Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Magee further teaches the carpet prior to dyeing may be naturally colored, uncolored, or pre-dyed (paragraphs [0042], [0051]-[0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the color of the coarse denier yarn (first yarn) and the fine denier yarn (second yarn), including being pre-dyed or using its natural or undyed color, depending on the background color desired for the pattern or design. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claim 27, Heine in view of Combs and Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Since printing of the pattern occurs on the face of the carpet as a secondary process after the carpet is formed, it is reasonable to presume that the color pattern does not impart color to the backstitch.
With respect to claim 28, Heine in view of Combs and Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As discussed above, the carpet of Heine in view of Combs and Magee includes a desired pattern on the face surface. The limitation “wherein a first tuft of the plurality of tufts comprises the first yarn having a first portion upon which a first color of the color pattern is applied and a second portion in which a second color of the color pattern is applied” is an aesthetic design choice directed to matters relating to ornamentation only which has no mechanical function, and therefore cannot be relied upon to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(I). It is within the ambit of the ordinary artisan to choose a design or pattern which provides a tuft with a first colored portion and a second colored portion.
With respect to claim 29, Heine in view of Combs and Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As discussed above, Magee teaches the application of an unlimited variety of designs, patterns, motifs, and images onto a carpet (paragraphs [0048], [0052], [0062]). The limitation “wherein the color pattern forms at least a portion of one of a logo, a picture, a cartoon, or an image” is an aesthetic design choice directed to matters relating to ornamentation only which has no mechanical function, and therefore cannot be relied upon to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(I). It is within the ambit of the ordinary artisan to choose a design or pattern which provides the desired aesthetic, such as a logo, picture, cartoon, or image.
With respect to claim 32, Heine in view of Combs and Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Heine further teaches the coarse denier fibers (filaments of the first yarn) may be nylon (col. 3, lines 38-42). Combs does not disclose the material of the fine denier fibers (filaments of the second yarn). However, Combs teaches the coarse fibers may be made of nylon or polyester (col. 4, lines 61-62). Similarly, Heine teaches the fine denier fibers may be nylon, polyester, or polypropylene, and the coarse denier fibers may be nylon, polyester, or polypropylene (col. 3, lines 38-42). 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 used nylon, polyester, or polypropylene as the material of the fine denier fibers (filaments of the second yarn) because nylon, polyester, and polypropylene are known in the art as suitable pile fiber materials, and would yield the predictable result of a carpeting material. See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claim 33, Heine in view of Combs and Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 26 above. As discussed above, the carpet of Heine in view of Combs and Magee includes a desired pattern on the face surface. Since printing of the pattern occurs on the face of the carpet as a secondary process after the carpet is formed, it is reasonable to presume that the color pattern does not impart color to the yarns, including the coarse denier yarns (first yarn), where the pattern is not printed.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heine (US 4820566)3,4 in view of Combs (US 6468622)2 and Magee (US 2002/0017264)2 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Rasnick Jr. (US 6332253)2.
With respect to claim 22, Heine in view of Combs and Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Heine in view of Combs and Magee is silent as to the first and second yarns being air entangled.
It is known in the art that air-jet entangling produces an entangled yarn where the individual components cohere to one another in a visually identifiable and distinguishable mass (Rasnick Jr.; col. 1, lines 19-33). 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 air entangled the yarns of Heine in view of Combs and Magee comprising the fine denier fibers of Combs and the coarse denier fibers of Heine in order to provide a cohesive, entangled yarn as is known in the art.
Claim(s) 31 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heine (US 4820566)5,6 in view of Combs (US 6468622)2 and Magee (US 2002/0017264)2 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wessells (US 3940522)7.
With respect to claims 31 and 34, Heine in view of Combs and Magee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Heine in view of Combs and Magee is silent as to the coarse yarn being a turf tape yarn or a monofilament blade yarn.
Wessells teaches a cut pile fabric with a pile layer comprising a multiplicity of fibers extending from a backing and secured thereto by adhesive in a conventional manner (col. 1, lines 61-64). The multiplicity of fibers include grass-like fibers (monofilament blade yarn) having a denier per fiber between about 200 and about 1500 and crimped fibers having a denier per filament of between about 6 and about 150 (col. 1, line 65 – col. 2, line 3). The combined pile yarn provides improved aesthetics and mechanical (e.g., frictional) properties and closely simulates natural turf (col. 2, lines 8-15).
Since both Heine in view of Combs and Magee teach pile fabrics comprising coarse and fine denier combined yarn piles, 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 coarse denier fibers of Heine to be grass-like fibers (monofilament blade yarn) in order to provide a pile that is aesthetically pleasing, provides improved frictional properties, and simulates natural turf.
With respect to the coarse denier yarn (first yarn) being configured to absorb pigment at a lower rate than the fine denier yarn (second yarn), Wessells further teaches the grass-like and crimpable fibers may accept different amounts of dye and thus dye to different intensities of the same dye color (col. 8, lines 5-9). Additionally, the instant specification discloses that a turf yarn absorbs pigment at a lower rate than a carpet yarn, leading to noticeable differences in the color tones shown by the two yarns (paragraph [0116]). In light of the teachings of Wessells and the instant specification it is reasonable to presume the feature of the coarse denier grass-like yarn (first yarn) being configured to absorb pigment at a lower rate than the fine denier yarn (second yarn) is inherent to the tufts of Heine in view of Combs, Magee, and Wessells.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments submitted on October 20, 2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the response Applicant submits that Heine fails to disclose forming a single tuft with coarse and fine fibers and instead emphasizes the advantages of the coarse and fine fibers being separated.
It is respectfully submitted that this argument is moot in view the new rejection of Heine in view of Combs and Magee as described above. Briefly, the teachings of Combs suggests adding fine denier fibers to tufts of coarse denier fibers so that the coarse denier fibers do not lie down when finished. This proposed combination provides a single tuft with both coarse and fine denier fibers while also maintaining the independent sections of coarse denier fibers and fine denier fibers exemplified by Heine.
On page 10 of the response Applicant submits that Magee are directed to fundamentally different articles with fundamentally different purposes, and therefore one skilled in the rat would not have been motivated to modify the tufted shoe-cleaning article of Heine in vie of the woven aesthetic article of Magee to arrive at the claimed combination.
These arguments are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that Magee states tufted products are inferior, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0017] of Magee, which compares the woven versus the tufted carpet, references problems discussed in paragraphs [0003]-[0016]). These problems are not identified as being unique to tufted carpets or being caused specifically by tufts. The problems identified are with respect to creating designs on carpets, not the structure of carpet. In fact, Magee discloses that tufted carpets are suitable for their invention (paragraphs [0032], [0051], [0053], [0087], [0086], Fig. 12, claims 12 and 14). It therefore would be obvious to one of skill in the art that the process of applying colors and designs disclosed by Magee are suitable for tufted carpets such as the one in Heine, and would be motivated to look to the teaches of Magee for creating a design on a tufted carpet.
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 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 Cited in IDS
2 Previously presented
3 Cited in IDS
4 Previously presented
5 Cited in IDS
6 Previously presented
7 Previously cited