Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/269,289

CARPET PAD

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jun 23, 2023
Examiner
PIERCE, JEREMY R
Art Unit
1789
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Kunshan Yijia Ju Textile Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
57%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 57% of resolved cases
57%
Career Allow Rate
321 granted / 566 resolved
-8.3% vs TC avg
Strong +43% interview lift
Without
With
+43.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
607
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
53.5%
+13.5% vs TC avg
§102
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
§112
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 566 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment filed on November 4, 2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. As such, Claims 1-11 are currently pending in the application, with Claims 8-11 withdrawn from consideration. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-7 are rejected 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. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 has been amended to recite that “a curvature of hooks of the monofilaments is disposed above more than half a total length of the monofilaments for at least a majority of monofilaments disposed on the pad, and the curvature of hooks of the monofilaments extends to the bumps” in lines 4-7. This limitation constitutes new matter in that it attempts to possession of a feature that was not contemplated at the time of filing the invention. In the Remarks filed November 4, 2025 (reproduced below), Applicant argued that support for the amendment can be found in Figure 1 and the accompanying text. PNG media_image1.png 406 700 media_image1.png Greyscale However, there are several issues present indicating that the amendment to Claim 1 is not supported by the combination of Figure 1 and its accompanying text. First, Figure 1, as originally filed, does not contain the dotted line above to denote an approximate half-way point to the total length of the monofilament. There isn’t any indication that a “half-way point” of the monofilament was relevant to any inventive concept of the invention. Additionally, it could be argued that it is not exactly clear where the curvature actually begins or ends in these drawings. Who could say whether the curvature actually beings at a half-way point, a one-quarter point, or a three-quarter point? Nothing in Figure 1 or its accompanying text makes it clear. Second, proportions of features in a drawing are not evidence of actual proportions when the drawings are not to scale. M.P.E.P. 2125(II). In fact, when a reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. In this instance, the present application does not offer any description on the scale or dimensions of the drawings. Figure 1 and its description from the Specification are reproduced below. PNG media_image2.png 174 530 media_image2.png Greyscale “As shown in FIG. 1, the carpet pad includes hook layer 1, intermediate layer 2, and anti-slip layer 3 sequentially from top to bottom. A surface of the hook layer is provided with protruding monofilaments.” Paragraphs [0046], [0053], and [0075]. None of the cited portions of the specification describe a relationship between the curvature of the hooks and of the length of the monofilaments. Moreover, none of the cited portions of the specification describe a relationship between the curvature of the hooks extending to the bumps. It certainly is not clear whether the curvature extends all the way to the bumps or not in Figure 1. Finally, Applicant has claimed that the curvature of hooks of the monofilaments is disposed above more than half a total length of the monofilaments for at least a majority of monofilaments. How does the person having ordinary skill in the art make the distinction that such a curvature would only be defined by a majority of the monofilaments instead of being necessary to all of the monofilaments? Figure 1 does not depict the hook curvatures to be any different in scale or starting location in a smaller subspecies of monofilaments compared to a larger majority. In short, the description of the drawings of the present application gives no indication that the drawings are drawn to scale, or that there is a relationship between the curvature of the hooks relative to the lengths of the monofilaments or an extension of the curvature relative to the bumps on the end of the monofilaments. Moreover, patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied upon for the particularities that are now claimed, given the silence of these parameters in the specification. As such, Claim 1 and its dependent claims contain new matter. 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 JEREMY R PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am to 5 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, Marla D. 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. JEREMY R. PIERCE Primary Examiner Art Unit 1789 /JEREMY R PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 23, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 30, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 30, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 04, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 30, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595598
KNIT SPACER FABRIC
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590231
ADHESIVE COMPOSITION FOR ORGANIC FIBER, ORGANIC FIBER-RUBBER COMPOSITE, AND TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590392
MANUFACTURING METHOD OF BREATHABLE AND WATERPROOF NON-WOVEN FABRIC
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12571133
HOMOGENEOUS FILLED YARN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12571141
MULTI-LAYER MELTBLOWN NON-WOVEN FABRIC AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
57%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+43.4%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 566 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month