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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 12/5/25 is acknowledged. Claims 7-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-6 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, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the term “chenille yarns” in line 6 and “particulate” in line 6. Claim 1 is further indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by the phrase “after tufting processing on the base fabric layer using chenille yarns, which is then processed to form the carpet layer with particulate form.” Specifically, it is not clear how or what is “processed” to form the carpet layer with particulate form. It is also unclear what is meant by “particulate form” Does the carpet article have particulates? 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. For example, the phrase “after tufting processing” is considered a method limitation. 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 2-6 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 2 is further indefinite because the claim is missing grammar (e.g., comprising backing layer rather than comprising a backing layer). Appropriate corrections are requested.
Claim 3 is further indefinite for missing grammar (e.g., wherein tufted rather than the tufted layer). Appropriate corrections are requested. Claim 3 is further indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by “particulate piles of a loop pile”.
Claim 5 is further indefinite because the term “raw materials” in line 1 lacks antecedent basis. Claim 5 is further indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by “the chenille yarn of the carpet layer is spun by taking two strands spun by staples or filaments with different fineness as core threads, and twisting with different twists to cut feather yarn with different fineness into different widths and sandwich the feather yarn between the two core threads; and.”
Claim 6 is further indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by the claimed yarn count of 2.6-0.2 Nm or what is meant by the claimed feather yarn count or feather yarn width.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN108236309A.
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 claims 4 and 5, 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN108236309A.
With regard to claim 6, the published CN document does not explicitly teach the claimed yarn properties; however, in view of the 112 2nd paragraph rejections set forth above, the Examiner is of the position that it would be within the skill of an ordinary worker in the art to select an appropriate chenille yarn having the desired filament count/twist as a function of desired surface aesthetics. The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 199, 125 USPQ 416, 418 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
8. 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