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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, in the reply filed on September 18, 2025, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-11, claim 1 recites a part comprising an aesthetic surface layer and a spacer layer, whereby both layers are consolidated and laminated to “the adjacent layer.” The claim does not define “an adjacent layer” or require the claimed surface layer to be adjacent to the claimed spacer layer. Therefore, the recitation of “the adjacent layer” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Additionally, claim 1 recites that the surface layer is thermally compressed to form a “stiff layer.” The recitation of “stiff” is subjective and qualitative. Therefore, it is unclear what structure is necessarily within the scope of a “stiff layer.”
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites that the pulled fibers are at least 80% polyester based and/or natural fiber-based, “for instance cotton, hemp or flax, and/or cellulose-based and/or mixture thereof.” It is unclear if the limitations following “for instance” are examples of optional materials and not required the by the claim, or are materials necessarily required by the claim. For purposes of examination, the limitations will be considered as merely exemplary and optional.
Regarding claims 5, 7, 10, and 11, the claims each recite limitations following “preferably.” It is unclear if the limitations following “preferably” are merely exemplary and not required the by the claim, or are materials necessarily required by the claim. For purposes of examination, the limitations will be considered as merely exemplary and optional.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites that the binder comprises at least one of a polymer or copolymer chosen from polyester, polyolefin “like polypropylene or polyethylene”, or polyamide-based materials. It is unclear what the scope of “like polypropylene or polyethylene” necessarily entails, such as whether the claim is merely reciting alternatives or various polymers which are “like” polypropylene or polyethylene. If the latter, it is unclear in what manner (structurally, compositionally, property related) the polymers are “like” polypropylene or polyethylene.
Regarding claim 7, the preamble recites “an automotive flooring system according to claim 1.” Claim 1 is directed to a main flooring part. It is unclear what is intended by the claim.
Additionally, the claim recites “whereby the surface comprises between 20 and 80% by weight” of pulled fibers. The claim is dependent from claim 1, which recites that the fibers of the surface of the aesthetic surface layer are heat set. It is unclear if the surface recited in claim 7 is directed to the surface of the surface layer, or the surface of the part. If the latter, it is unclear which surface of the part is being referenced.
Additionally, the claim recites that a total amount of fibers and binders of 100% by weight. The verbiage of the claim is unclear, as to what “100% by weight” is referring.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the claim recites that the film layer has a claimed air permeability or comprises at least one of the claimed materials. The claims are each dependent from claim 2, which does not require a film layer. Therefore, it is unclear what structure was intended by the claims.
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the indefiniteness of the claim based on “preferably”, the claim further recites preferably the local patch is placed in recess in the aesthetic surface. Claim 11 is dependent from claim 1, which does not recite a recess. Additionally, claim 1 recites that the aesthetic surface layer is thermally compressed to form a stiff layer, and that the fibers of the surface of the aesthetic surface layer are heat set to smooth the aesthetic surface. Claim does not appear to allow for any recesses. Therefore, it is unclear what structure is claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2017/0313264 to Guigner.
Regarding claims 1-11, Guigner teaches a multilayer automotive trim part for noise attenuation comprising at least two fibrous layers and at least one air permeable intermediate film layer between the fibrous layers, wherein at least one of the fibrous layers is a mixture of fibers consisting of 10 to 40% binder fibers and 10 to 70% of recycled fibers (Guigner, Abstract). Guigner teaches that the multilayer part can be used as part of an interior flooring system (Id., paragraph 0079). Guigner teaches that preferably, the fibrous layers are having the same or similar mixture of fibers (Id., paragraph 0050). Guigner teaches that the blended fibres are formed in a mat or batt, by known technologies, preferably by using a card or by using an air-lay process (Id., paragraph 0082). Guigner teaches laminating the layers (Id., paragraph 0062), and that if there is a need for later processing, the web or mat formed can be consolidated for instance in a thermal process step (Id., paragraph 0082) Guigner teaches that the product can be made by using hot moulding processes (Id., paragraph 0083). Guigner teaches that during the moulding, the top and/or bottom fibrous layers are compressed and the fibers are bound to set the final shape of the part (Id., paragraph 0068). Guigner teaches that the top layer may be a straight layer (Id., paragraph 0069), wherein the layer is relatively constant in its final thickness (Id., paragraph 0070). Based on the totality of the teachings of Guigner, the multilayer part of Guigner appears to inherently comprise a thermally compressed layer to form a stiff layer, which are heat set to smooth the layer.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the part of Guigner, wherein compressing and hot moulding to bind the fibers result in a structure which is stiff and smooth, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional part for use as an interior flooring system, having the desired structure and shape suitable for the intended application.
Regarding claims 2-7, Guigner teaches that the fibrous layers are having the same or similar mixture of fibers, wherein the fibers are formed into a mat by air laying and by needling (Guigner, paragraph 0082). Guigner teaches that the fibrous layers are a mixture of fibers consisting of 10 to 40% binder fibers and 10 to 70% of recycled fibers. Guigner teaches that the binder fibers can be polyolefin, in particular polypropylene (Id., paragraph 0047), wherein the polymers used for the binder fibers can come from recycled resources (Id., paragraph 0041). Guigner teaches that the recycling fiber are preferably shoddy cotton or shoddy polyester (Id., paragraph 0048). Note that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claims 8-10, Guigner teaches that the air-permeable intermediate film is between the fibrous layers and connected to the layers (Guigner, Fig. 1), wherein the film can be made from a polyolefin (Id., paragraph 0061), and wherein the air flow resistance is between 500 and 2500 N·s·m-3 (Id., paragraph 0065). Note that 1 rayl is equivalent to 1 N·s·m-3.
Regarding claim 11, Guigner teaches that the part may further comprise additional layers such as a decorative top layer, for instance a tufted or nonwoven carpet layer (Guigner, paragraph 0080).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the part of Guigner, wherein the decorative top layer is only placed over a part of the surface, as it is within the level of ordinary skill to determine suitable decorative aesthetics of the part when covered with a decorative layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786