DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/20/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-9, 11 and 16 have been cancelled. Claims 10 and 12-15 have been amended. Claims 10 and 12-15 are pending.
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 Amendments and Arguments
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome the claim objections set forth in the office action of 11/19/2025. Therefore, the claim objections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 4, filed 4/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant argues that REYNOLDS does not teach a blend of “branched” PET. The Applicant states that neither REYNOLDS nor TICHELAAR explicitly teach a branched PET. The Examiner agrees that REYNOLDS nor TICHELAAR explicitly teach a branched PET. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Brunner et al. (U.S. 2015/0322604), hereinafter BRUNNER.
The Applicant also argues that THOMPSON is made from nylon fibers and LDPE hot melt and a skilled person would not combine THOMPSON into REYNOLDS and TICHELAAR, as it would clearly alter the purpose and principle of operation and construction and polyester based compositions that are disclosed by REYNOLDS and TICHELAAR.
Applicant’s THOMPSON arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the THOMPSON reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REYNOLDS et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0071333), hereinafter REYNOLDS, in view of TICHELAAR et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0323172), hereinafter TICHELAAR, Brunner et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0322604), hereinafter BRUNNER, and Nishio et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2007/0178794), hereinafter NISHIO.
Regarding claim 10, REYNOLDS teaches: A method for manufacturing a carpet (REYNOLDS teaches a method of manufacturing a carpet [Abstract]), where the method comprises: providing a polyester yarn (REYNOLDS teaches providing a polyester yarn [0002; 0023]); providing a primary polyester backing having first and second sides (REYNOLDS teaches a primary polyester backing (1) [0006; 0010; 0020; 0119; 0145]. REYNOLDS teaches the primary backing has a first and second side [Fig. 7; 0145].); tufting the polyester yarn into the first side of said polyester backing where said yarn extends from said second side of said primary backing (REYNOLDS teaches tufting the yarn into the first side of the backing [0015; 0031; 0135; 0151; Fig. 7].); heating and melting a polyester and applying said melted polyester by roll coating the melted polyester to said second side of said primary backing wherein said polyester coating provides a secondary backing layer that engages said polyester yarn extending from said second side of said primary backing (REYNOLDS teaches polyester layer (11) applied to the primary back the provides a secondary backing layer that engages said polyester yarn extending from said second side of the primary backing [Figs. 9-10; 0011]. REYNOLDS also teaches the glue layer may be applied in liquid form, e.g. by spraying liquid coPET [0066]. REYNOLDS teaches such liquid glue or liquid coPET may be obtained from melting pellets containing the glue or coPET and the spraying may be applied to, preferably the back, of the tufted primary backing [0066].), . . . , and wherein said melted polyester applied by roll coating comprise a blend of branched PET and a copolymer of PET (coPET) having a melting temperature in the range of 100°C to 280°C (REYNOLDS teaches the adhesive applied is a blend of PET and coPET with a melting temperature in the range of 120°C to 240°C [0057-0058; 0043]. REYNOLDS teaches possible compositions for use in the glue layer are PET modified with diols or diacids, such as respectively with cyclohexane dimethanol or isophtalic acid [0058]. It is known in the art that cyclohexane dimethanol is a branching agent, as evidenced by BELLAMY [0038].) and wherein said coPET is selected form the group consisting of poly(cyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalateglycol), poly(cyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalate/isophthalate glycol) and poly(cyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalate) (REYNOLDS teaches the adhesive chosen is a coPET [Abstract] and possible coPET compositions are PET modified with diols or diacids, such as respectively with cyclohexane dimethanol or isophtalic acid [0058].); and . . . .
REYNOLDS is silent as to applying the polyester melt by roll coating, a branched PET, wherein said polyester has a viscosity in the range of 1500 cp to 100,000 cp, and wherein said carpet has an airflow resistance in the range of 300 Rayls to 9000 Rayls.
REYNOLDS is silent as to applying the polyester melt by roll coating, and wherein said polyester has a viscosity in the range of 1500 cp to 100,000 cp. In the same field of endeavor, carpets, TICHELAAR teaches that a polyester adhesive (110) is roll coated onto a polyester primary backing (2) [Fig. 2; 0040]. TICHELAAR teaches the polyester adhesive can be a hot melt glue [0038; 0010]. TICHELAAR teaches the polyester adhesive has a viscosity of 5-55 Pa·s (5,000 cp to 55,000 cp), which overlaps with the claimed range [0008]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify REYNOLDS, by having the adhesive be roll coated, as suggested by TICHELAAR, in order to improve adhesive mechanical deterioration under stress [0006]. Furthermore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify REYNOLDS, by applying the adhesive by roll coating as it’s a known method in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.").
REYNOLDS and TICHELAAR are silent as to a branched PET. In the same field of endeavor, polyesters and fibers, BRUNNER teaches polyethylene terephthalate may be a branched polymer [0049]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify REYNOLDS and TICHELAAR, by substituting the polyethylene terephthalate to be a branched polymer, as suggested by BRUNNER, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
REYNOLDS, TICHELAAR and BRUNNER are silent as to: wherein said carpet has an airflow resistance in the range of 300 Rayls to 9000 Rayls. In the same field of endeavor, carpets, NISHIO teaches a carpet (1) having an airflow resistance of 600 to 12,450 N·s·m-3 (600 to 12,450 Rayls) [0044], which overlaps with the claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify REYNOLDS and TICHELAAR, by having an airflow resistance of 600 to 12,450 N·s·m-3, as suggested by NISHIO, in order for sound absorption performance and sound insulation performance to be enhanced [0044].
Regarding claim 12, TICHELAAR teaches: wherein said polyester applied by said roll coating has a thickness in the range of 5.0 microns to 500.0 microns (TICHELAAR teaches polyester adhesive applied has a thickness of about 20 microns [0042]).
Regarding claim 13, REYNOLDS teaches: wherein said polyester applied by said roll coating has a basis weight in the range of 10.0 g/m2 to 600.0 g/m2 (REYNOLDS teaches the glue layer has a weigh of less than 100 g/m2 [0031]).
Regarding claim 14, TICHELAAR teaches: wherein said roll coating of said melted polyester is applied at a speed at an application speed of 12 meters/minute to 60 meters/minute (TICHELAAR teaches the speed is at least 10 m/min, which overlaps with the claimed range [0028; 0042; 0049]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REYNOLDS et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0071333), hereinafter REYNOLDS, TICHELAAR et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0323172), hereinafter TICHELAAR, Brunner et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2015/0322604), hereinafter BRUNNER, and Nishio et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2007/0178794), hereinafter NISHIO, as applied to claim 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2004/0038142), hereinafter YOSHIDA.
Regarding claim 15, REYNOLDS, TICHELAAR, BRUNNER and NISHIO teach all of the claimed limitation as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein said polyester applied by roll coating provides a porous coating. In the same field of endeavor, adhesive and roll coating, YOSHIDA teaches a roll coating method using a foam roll [0350; 0316]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify REYNOLDS, TICHELAAR, BRUNNER and NISHIO, by the roller having a foam material for at least the surface layer, as suggested by YOSHIDA, in order to increase contact [0316].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached on (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights