DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 8/4/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1 and 5 have been amended. Claim 7 has been cancelled. Claims 10-16 are new. Claims 1-6 and 8-16 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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that after REYNOLDS applies the solid filaments to the primary backing layer, REYNOLDS via use of the heated drum can achieve calendar bonding of the solid filaments, in effect, a two-step procedure to provide the glue layer. The Applicant argues that TICHELLAR’s approach of applying a thin layer to the substrate (2) is an approach that is completely inapposite to the teachings of REYNOLDS. The Applicant argues that inserting TICHELLAR’s teachings of using molten adhesive and a heated kiss roller into REYNOLDS, would require one to discard the step of laminating solid filaments to the primary backing and necessarily alter an importation principal of operation of REYNOLDS.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. REYNOLDS teaches a glue layer may be applied in liquid form, e.g. by spraying [0066]. REYNOLDS teaches such liquid glue or liquid coPET may be obtained from melting pellets and the spraying may be applied to, preferably the back, of the tufted primary backing [0066]. Therefore, REYNOLDS teaches melting the glue layer and applying it to the back of the primary backing. REYNOLDS teaches application can be done by spraying, but not by roll coating. 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."). Additionally, TICHELAAR is being used for the method of roll coating.
Lastly, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Applicant argues that THOMPSON is not properly combinable with REYNOLDS and TICHELAAR and THOMPSON, which informs the skilled person of the perils of laminating an airflow resistive membrane against a carpet utilizing hot melt adhesive, would teach the skilled person not to expect that one could provide a carpet with a targeted airflow resistance as recited in amended independent claim 1.
The Examiner agrees that THOMPSON requires several layers to be utilized; however, the claims as written do not state that only a primary backing, adhesive layer and/or a secondary backing is used. The claims as written can comprise various layers. Therefore, the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Furthermore, THOMPSON also teaches a porous laminate comprising a discontinuous hot melt adhesive layer adhered to a semipermeable low surface energy airflow resistive porous layer whose pores are substantially impenetrable by the adhesive [0015].
Additionally, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, THOMPSON states it would be 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 air resistance between 1000-4200 Rayls in order for the carpet to experience partial or even substantially complete pore plugging [0006].
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “said primary backing wherein” should read “said primary backing, where”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “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, wherein said melted polyester applied by roll coating comprises a blend of branched PET and a copolymer of PET (coPET) having a melting temperature in the range of 100 °C to 280 °C and wherein said coPET is selected from the group consisting of poly(cyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalateglycol), poly(cyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalate/isophthalate glycol) and poly(cyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalate).” should read “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, wherein said melted polyester applied by roll coating comprises a blend of branched PET and a copolymer of PET (coPET) having a melting temperature in the range of 100 °C to 280 °C, and wherein said coPET is selected from the group consisting of poly(cyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalateglycol), poly(cyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalate/isophthalate glycol) and poly(cyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalate).”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The method of said claim 10 wherein” should read “The method of said claim 10, wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The method of said claim 10 wherein” should read “The method of said claim 10, wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The method of said claim 10 wherein” should read “The method of said claim 10, wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The method of said claim 10 wherein” should read “The method of said claim 10, wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The method of said claim 10 wherein” should read “The method of said claim 10, wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The method of said claim 10 wherein” should read “The method of said claim 10, wherein”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 10-14 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.
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 [0006; 0010; 0020; 0119]. 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; 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].), 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]) 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].).
REYNOLDS is silent as to applying the polyester melt by roll coating. 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]. 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.").
Regarding claim 11,TICHELAAR teaches: wherein said polyester applied by roll coating has a viscosity in the range of 1500 cp to 100,000 cp (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.).
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) 1-5 and 8-9 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, and Thompson (U.S. PGPUB 2004/0131836), hereinafter THOMPSON.
Regarding claim 1, REYNOLDS teaches: A method for manufacturing a carpet (REYNOLDS teaches a method of manufacturing a carpet [Abstract]), where the method comprises: providing 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 [0006; 0010; 0020; 0119]. REYNOLDS teaches the primary backing has a first and second side [Fig. 7; 0145]); tufting the polyester yarn into a first side of said primary polyester backing where said yarn extends from said second side of said primary backing (REYNOLDS teaches tufting the yarn into a first side of the primary backing [Fig. 7; 0082; 0120; 0151]); 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].) . . . .
REYNOLDS is silent as to applying the polyester melt by roll coating. 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]. 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 teach all of the claimed limitation as stated above, but 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, textiles, THOMPSON teaches a carpet construction that has an airflow resistance greater than about 1,000 Rayls and less than about 4,200 Rayls [0064]. 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 air resistance between 1000-4200 Rayls, as suggested by THOMPSON, in order for the carpet to experience partial or even substantially complete pore plugging [0006].
Regarding claim 2, TICHELAAR further teaches: wherein said polyester applied by roll coating has a viscosity in the range of 1500 cp to 100,000 cp (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 polyester to have the viscosity of 5-55 Pa·s (5,000 cp to 55,000 cp), as suggested by TICHELAAR, in order to prevent deterioration of the polymer pile yarns [0025].
Regarding claim 3, TICHELAAR further 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]). 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 polyester applied to have a thickness of about 20 microns, as suggested by TICHELAAR, in order for the carpet to experience partial or even substantially complete pore plugging [0006].
Regarding claim 4, 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 5, TICHELAAR further teaches: wherein said roll coating of said melted polyester is applied at a speed at an application speed of 12 meter/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.). 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 application speed of at least 10 m/min, as suggested by TICHELAAR, in order to influence the viscosity of the adhesive [0008].
Regarding claim 8, REYNOLDS teaches: wherein said melted polyester applied by roll coating is selected from 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]).
Regarding claim 9, REYNOLDS teaches: wherein said melted polyester applied by roll coating comprises 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]) and wherein said coPET is selected from the group consisting of poly(cyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalateglycol), poly(cyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalate/isophthalate glycol) and poly(cyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalate) (REYNOLDS teaches possible coPET compositions are PET modified with diols or diacids, such as respectively with cyclohexane dimethanol or isophtalic acid [0058]).
Claim(s) 6 and 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, and Thompson (U.S. PGPUB 2004/0131836), hereinafter THOMPSON, as applied to claim 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2004/0038142), hereinafter YOSHIDA.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, REYNOLDS and TICHELAAR 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 and TICHELAAR, by the roller having a foam material for at least the surface layer, as suggested by YOSHIDA, in order to increase contact [0316].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REYNOLDS et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0071333), hereinafter REYNOLDS, and TICHELAAR et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0323172), hereinafter TICHELAAR, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Thompson (U.S. PGPUB 2004/0131836), hereinafter THOMPSON.
Regarding claim 16, REYNOLDS and TICHELAAR teach all of the claimed limitation as stated above, but 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, textiles, THOMPSON teaches a carpet construction that has an airflow resistance greater than about 1,000 Rayls and less than about 4,200 Rayls [0064]. 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 air resistance between 1000-4200 Rayls, as suggested by THOMPSON, in order for the carpet to experience partial or even substantially complete pore plugging [0006].
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 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