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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 13, 2026 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 and claim amendments submitted on February 13, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently claims 1 and 15 are amended, claims 29-40 are cancelled, resulting in claims 1-28 pending for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In the instant case, claims 1 and 13 use the phrase “mechanical locking device”. With respect to test (A), “device” is a generic placeholder having no specific structural meaning for performing the claimed function. With respect to test (B), the mechanical locking device is configured to connect similar or essentially identical building panels in an assembled position. With respect to test (C), the “device” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the phrase “mechanical locking device” is being interpreted under 112(f) and is thus construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Starting on page 8, line 25 the instant specification describes the mechanical locking device as including connecting means, and goes on to explain the structure of these connecting means on pages 8-10 and Figs. 4a-9c and their respective descriptions.
In the instant case, claims 13-14 and 27-28 use the phrases “connecting means” and “counter-connecting means”. Both phrases use the term “means” and therefore fulfill test (A). The “connecting means” is configured to engage with a counter-connecting means, therefore the “connecting means” is modified by functional language, fulfilling test (B). The “counter-connecting means” in claim 14 is configured to lock at least two adjacent building panels in a substantially horizontal and/or vertical direction and therefore also fulfills test (B). Neither the “connecting means” nor the “counter-connecting means” are modified by structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function, and thus meet test (C). As such, both the phrases “connecting means” and “counter-connecting means” are being interpreted under 112(f) and are thus construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Starting on pages 9-10, the instant specification describes the connecting means and counter-connecting means, and goes on to explain the structure of these connecting means in Figs. 4a-9c and their respective descriptions.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Journo (CA 2032599)1 in view of Whispell (US 2014/0352248)1. Supporting evidence provided by Fink (US 5240530)1 and Corbin (US 5538776)1.
With respect to claims 1-6, 8, 15-20, and 22, De Journo teaches a recyclable carpet (building panel) comprising a primary backing (surface layer/carrier) formed from a first material, a pile (decorative carpet fibers) extending from at least the first surface of the primary backing (surface layer/carrier) and made from a material that is of substantially the same generic class as the first material, and a binder adhering to at least the second surface of the primary backing (surface layer/carrier) and made from a material that is of substantially the same generic class as the first material (page 2, line 22 – page 3, line 9). The primary backing (surface layer/carrier), pile (decorative carpet fibers), and binder may all be made from polypropylene (same base polymer) (page 8, lines 2-4).
De Journo is silent as to the carpet (building panel) comprising a substrate comprising a mechanical locking device arranged at least partly along at least one side edge of said carpet (building panel) and configured to connect building panels having corresponding structural and/or mechanical features in an assembled position.
Whispell teaches carpet tiles which combine a carpet layer as a surface layer and a substrate comprised of VCT, LVT, or rubber materials to which the carpeting is attached (paragraph [0071]). In view of a mechanical interlocking tongue and groove system being provided at the profiled edges of the composite structure, the carpet does not need to be adhered to a floor which it is covers to keep the tiles in place (paragraph [0071]). This can provide modular carpet tile flooring which is strongly connecting and can be easily installed, replaced/repaired, and uninstalled while eliminating the need to use costly or difficult to remove adhesives (paragraph [0071]). The rubber can be a thermoplastic elastomer (paragraph [0070]).
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 include a substrate comprising a mechanical interlocking tongue and groove system is provided at profiled edges attached to the binder of De Journo in order to provide a modular carpet tile flooring which is strongly connecting and can be easily installed, replaced/repaired, and uninstalled while eliminating the need to use costly or difficult to remove adhesives.
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the profiled substrate to be a material of substantially the same generic class of the material of the carpet in order to maintain De Journo’s goals of a recyclable carpet where the layers are adhered to each other. Whispell teaches the substrate may be a thermoplastic elastomer (Whispell; paragraph [0070]), and thermoplastic polyolefin elastomers (Fink; col. 6, lines 62-65) and polyester elastomers (Corbin; col. 3, lines 16-19) suitable for use in recyclable carpets are known in the art.
With respect to claims 7 and 21, De Journo in view of Whispell teaches all the limitations of claims 5 and 19 above. De Journo further teaches that the binder may be soften through heat (page 9, lines 15-20).
With respect to claims 9 and 23, De Journo in view of Whispell teaches all the limitations of claims 8 and 22 above. The layers of De Journo being formed of polymers of “substantially the same generic class” includes those materials that have substantially the same characteristics so as to permit the two materials to be softened together and then, when cooled, to form one material (De Journo; page 4, line 24 – page 5, line 4). Therefore, when the binder is softened and bonded to the primary backing (surface layer) it becomes one material with the primary backing (surface layer) (De Journo; page 9, lines 15-20). As such, when the carpet of De Journo is bonded to the substrate of Whispell by softening of the lower surface of the carpet as described in the bonding process of De Journo, the material from a surface of said primary backing (surface layer) is at least partially merged with the material of substantially the same generic class of a surface of the substrate.
With respect to claims 10-11 and 24-25, De Journo in view of Whispell teaches all the limitations of claims 9 and 23 above. De Journo further teaches that the “softening” of the material may be through application of heat (lamination process) or treating the material chemically (chemical welding process) (page 5, lines 5-10).
With respect to claims 12 and 26, De Journo in view of Whispell teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 15 above. De Journo further teaches the pile may be tufted or needled into the primary backing (page 9, lines 5-7).
With respect to claims 13-14 and 27-28, De Journo in view of Whispell teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 15 above. As can be seen in at least Fig. 10 of Whispell, the substrate comprises a connecting means on at least one side edge and a counter-connecting means arranged on an opposite side edge, wherein the connecting means is configured to engage with the counter-connecting means of a second building panel in a substantially horizonal direction (Fig. 10).
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
The rejections of claims 1-28 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, are overcome by Applicants amendments to the claims and the arguments in the response filed February 13, 2026.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments submitted on February 13, 2026 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 10-12 of the response Applicant submits that De Journo does not teach the layers having the same base polymer as is claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned in the rejection above, De Journo teaches the primary backing (surface layer/carrier), pile (decorative carpet fibers), and binder may all be made from polypropylene (same base polymer) (De Journo; page 8, lines 2-4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Corbin (US 5370757) discloses a process for manufacturing substantially 100% nylon 6 carpet (abstract).
Erren (US 5494723) discloses a tufting carpet with comprises a tufting base, a pile material and a carpet back which essentially consists exclusively of polyamide 6 (abstract).
Williams (US 2014/0272262) discloses tufted floorcovering articles including carpet tiles and broadloom carpets (abstract). In particular, the invention relates to tufted floorcovering articles made from the family of polymers known as polyester (abstract). Specifically, the invention relates to tufted carpet tile products made from polyester which meet commercial performance specifications and are fully end-of-life recyclable (abstract).
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 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Previously presented
Prosecution Insights