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 As such, Claims 1-11 are currently pending in the application, with Claims 8-11 withdrawn from consideration.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
Prosecution Insights