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
1. Applicant’s amendments and accompanying remarks filed 5/14/26 have been fully considered and entered. Claims 1-3 have been amended. Claims 5-6 have been canceled. Applicants’ cancellation of claims 5-6 moots the 112 2nd paragraph indefinite and anticipation rejections as set forth in the Action dated 4/9/26. As such, these rejections are hereby withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments are not found sufficient to overcome the 112 2nd paragraph indefinite rejections of claims 1-4 in the Action dated 4/9/26 for reasons set forth below. Applicant’s arguments are also not found persuasive to overcome the anticipation and obviousness type rejections made over the cited prior art of CN108236309A set forth in the Action dated 4/9/26 for reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-4 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.
With regard to claim 1, it is not clear what is meant by the recitation “core of chenille yarns in the loop pile tufted layer, upon high-temperature frictional shrinkage, drives the pile of the carpet blank to shrink and self-twist into a particulate shape, thereby forming the carpet layer with the particulate form.” Specifically, it is not clear what is meant by “core of chenille yarns in the loop pile tufted layer”. The term “core of chenille yarns” lack antecedent basis. Applicants are not claiming sheath/core fiber comprising yarns. With regard to the recitation of “upon high-temperature frictional shrinkage” it is not clear if Applicants are intending to claim a method step (e.g., application of heat that causes shrinkage) or a tufting method (e.g., driving the pile yarn into the surface of the base fabric layer). It is also not clear if Applicants are claiming a twisted pile yarn. It is also unclear what is meant by “particulate form”. Do Applicants mean a pile having a “particular” shape? If so, it is unclear what shape Applicants are claiming. Further it is not clear what is meant by “carpet blank”. The term “carpet blank” lacks antecedent basis. The Examiner maintains that claim 1 is also indefinite because it appears that Applicants are reciting method limitations on a product claim rather than reciting the structural limitations of the product. It appears that Applicants are attempting to claim a chenille carpet comprising a base fabric and a carpet layer made from tufting chenille type yarns into one side of the base fabric thereby forming a loop pile on the surface. However, Applicants present claim language fails to capture such a structure. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner will construe claim 1 to mean a chenille carpet comprising a base fabric layer and a carpet layer made from tufting chenille type yarns into one side of the base fabric thereby forming a loop pile on the surface. Claims 2-4 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 3 is further indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by “core of chenille yarns in the loop pile tufted layer drives the pile of the carpet blank to shrink and self-twist into a particulate shape” for reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN108236309A.
In view of the 112 2nd paragraph rejections set forth above, the Examiner maintains the previous rejections as set forth below.
With regard to claim 1, the published CN document teach a tufted carpet comprising a base layer and carpet layer (title and abstract). The present invention mainly provides a tufted carpet comprising a base fabric layer and a top layer, the base fabric layer partially or entirely adopting a pile fabric, and the top layer is disposed on the side of the base fabric layer. The surface layer is formed by tufting (see summary of invention).
The velvet of the top layer is a combination of cut pile, loop pile or loop pile and cut pile (see summary of invention). Example 1 cut velvet, loop pile tufted carpet: As shown in FIG. 1, the present embodiment provides a tufted carpet 1, which is composed of a base fabric layer 101, a carpet back layer 102 and a surface layer 104. The base fabric layer 101 is entirely or partially selected from a pile fabric. In the example, a warp-knitted cut pile fabric is provided, which has a pile surface 103, and the pile surface 103 has a pile height of 5 mm. The surface layer 104 is formed by continuing tufting on the pile surface 103. In this embodiment, it is in the form of loop pile, and the pile height is 25 mm. The facing layer 104 includes a plurality of discrete tufting regions 105.
The tufted yarn is selected, and 0.45Nm polyester fancy yarn (chenille) is used as the tufted yarn, and the color is white, and is dyed after subsequent tufting (see machine translation).
With regard to claim 2, the back of the carpet is hot-melt adhesive anti-slip bottom (see machine translation).
With regard to claim 3, the pile fabric can be finished according to various functions, such as waterproof, water absorption, insect proof, flame retardant, napping, fluffing, calendaring and the like (see machine translation). Calendaring involves using rollers.
With regard to claim 4, the base fabric layer is designed and woven. In this case, the base fabric layer is warp knitted and cut velvet fabric, the material is 100% polyester fiber, the hair height is 10mm, and the weight is 230gsm (see machine translation). The tufted yarn is selected, and 0.45Nm polyester fancy yarn (chenille) is used as the tufted yarn, and the color is white, and is dyed after subsequent tufting (see machine translation).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive in view of the 112 2nd paragraph rejections set forth above. Applicant’s arguments are based on amendments made to claims 1 and 3, however, the scope of these claims is still unclear as set forth above. As such, the Examiner maintains (as set forth above) that the cited prior art anticipates the rejected claims.
Conclusion
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights