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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “[a] detachable carpet mat, comprising a surface layer, an adhesive anti-slip layer and a carpet surface layer, wherein the carpet surface layer and the adhesive anti-slip layer are detachably connected; the surface layer comprising a plain woven structure face layer (1) and a hooking layer (2).” It is unclear if the carpet surface layer and surface layer are intended to refer to separate and distinct portions of the carpet mat or if the carpet surface layer can comprise the surface layer. The originally filed disclosure and drawings do not appear to depict the carpet surface layer being separate or distinct from the surface layer. The carpet surface layer is only mentioned once in the originally filed disclosure stating “the present disclosure provides a detachable carpet mat, which includes a surface layer and an adhesive anti-slip layer, wherein the carpet surface layer and the adhesive anti-slip layer are detachably connected” (see para 0005-0007). Based on this portion, it appears that the carpet surface layer is the same as the surface layer or can comprise the surface layer. The claims do not further define or limit beyond the detachable connection to the adhesive anti-slip layer. For the purpose of prior art application, Examiner will interpret the carpet surface layer as encompassing comprising or being the surface layer.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “the monofilaments have a certain curvature and inclination after heat treatment to form hooks.” It is unclear the “certain curvature and inclination” required by the claim apart from forming hooks. For the purpose of prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 1 as encompassing the raised monofilament being in the form of hooks.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “the hooks are used for being hooked to gaps of various adhesive anti-slip layers.” Only one adhesive anti-slip layers has been positively recited in the claim. It is unclear if the claim intends to have a plurality of adhesive anti-slip layers. It is also unclear if the claim intends the adhesive anti-slip layer to have gaps or is merely recited a potential function. For the purpose of prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 1 as encompassing the hooks being capable of being hooked into gaps of the adhesive anti-slip layer.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the plain woven structure face layer (1) comprises a fleece fabric structure layer, a woven fabric layer with a mesh gap structure, a fabric structure layer with several gaps, a non-woven structure layer and an air layer sandwich structure layer.” It is unclear if the claim intends all of the recited structures to be present and whether the same material can correspond to multiple layers that are listed. For example, a fleece fabric structure can also correspond to a non-woven structure and potentially an air layer sandwich structure. A plain woven structure is well defined and a term of the art and is a specific type of woven fabric. Fleece, non-woven, and sandwich structure are distinct from the plain woven structure. The originally filed disclosure teaches “the face layer includes a fleece fabric structure layer, a woven fabric layer with a mesh gap structure, a fabric structure layer with several gaps, a non-woven structure layer, and an air layer sandwich structure layer” (see para 0009 of the originally filed disclosure). Based on this teaching, the face layer can be any of the structure recited, with woven being a particular embodiment. The originally filed disclosure teaches the use of a non-woven fabric layer with a mid-cotton layer in a certain embodiment making up the surface layer in combination with a plain woven structure face layer (see Fig. 3, para 0029-0030). The originally filed disclosure teaches a fabric binding layer but does not further structurally define the fabric binding layer. If intended to be different and distinct layers, the specification would be objected to as not providing support for this claim. MPEP § 2163.06(III) recites that “claims as filed in the original specification are part of the disclosure and therefore, if an application as originally filed contains a claim disclosing material not disclosed in the remainder of the specification, the applicant may amend the specification to include the claimed subject matter. In reBenno, 768 F.2d 1340, 226 USPQ 683 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Additionally, there appears to be a missing comma between the non-woven structure layer and the ”and” listing the last option of an air layer sandwich structure layer. For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art application, Examiner will interpret claim 2 as encompassing a single layer meeting multiple categories claimed.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein a material of the adhesive anti-slip layer adopts a thermoplastic elastomer layer and/or an EVA/PU/PVC/SBR/XPE foam material layer and/or a non-woven fabric layer and/or a hot melt glue layer.” It is unclear is “adopts” is intended to differ from being or comprising. Additionally, the acronyms “EVA/PU/PVC/SBR/XPE” have not been defined in the instant disclosure and therefore renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a height of the raised monofilament is 0.5 mm to 5 mm, and a thickness of the raised monofilament is 20DTEX to 5000DTEX.” However, claim 1 recites the limitation raised monofilaments. It is unclear if claim 7 intends to limit one of the raised monofilaments or limit the raised monofilaments. For the purpose of compact prosecution and prior art mapping, Examiner will interpret claim 7 as encompassing at least one of the raised monofilaments having the claimed dimensions.
The remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on rejected claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 217408418 to Cao.
NOTE: Us Pub. No. 2025/0072642 to Cao is being used as an English equivalent for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5-6, Cao teaches a detachable carpet (detachable carpet mat) comprising a carpet surface layer and an adhesive anti-skid layer (anti-slip layer), wherein the carpet surface layer and the adhesive anti-skid layer (anti-slip layer) are detachably connected, the carpet surface layer comprises a surface layer, such as a surface layer of a plain woven structure (plain woven structure face layer), and a sticky layer (hooking layer), wherein the surface layer is arranged at a top end of the carpet surface layer (Cao, abstract, para 0008-0015, 0029, 0032-0038). Cao teaches bent protruded monofilaments being distributed on a lower surface of the sticky layer (hooking layer) (Id., abstract), reading on raised monofilaments being distributed on a lower surface of the hooking layer. Cao teaches the protruded monofilament being subjected to thermal treatment to have certain radian, inclination to form hooked spines which can be hooked with gaps of various adhesive anti-skid layers therebelow to gain a locking effect (Id., para 0012), reading on the monofilaments having a certain curvature and inclination after heat treatment to form hooks, and the hooks are used for being hooked to gaps of the adhesive anti-slid layer (adhesive anti-slip layer) below and forming a locking effect.
Regarding claim 2, Cao teaches the surface layer includes one of a surface layer of a velvet pile structure, a surface layer of a loop pile structure, a surface layer of a fleecy structure (fleece fabric structure layer/ nonwoven structure layer/ air layer sandwich structure layer), and a surface layer of a plain woven structure (Cao, para 0015). Cao teaches a supportive fabric bonding layer being placed between the surface layer and the sticky layer and the supportive layer being a fabric structure including one of a nonwoven layer (fleece fabric structure layer/ non-woven structure layer/ fabric structure layer with several gaps), a knitted layer (fabric structure layer with several gaps), and a woven layer (fabric structure layer with several gaps/ woven fabric layer with a mesh gap structure) (Id., para 0014). Cao teaches the sticky layer including one of a warp and weft woven layer (fabric structure layer with several gaps/ woven fabric layer with a mesh gap structure), a layer of a woven structure (fabric structure layer with several gaps/ woven fabric layer with a mesh gap structure), a layer of tufting ang and cutting structure (air layer sandwich structure layer/ fabric structure layer with several gaps), a layer of a flocking structure, a layer of a fleecy structure (fleece fabric structure layer/ air layer sandwich structure layer), and a layer of a fleecy nonwoven structure (fleece fabric structure layer/ nonwoven structure layer/ air layer sandwich structure layer) (Id., para 0016). Combined, Cao reads on the plain woven structure face layer comprising a fleece fabric structure layer, a woven fabric layer with a mesh gap structure, a gap structure layer with several gaps, a non-woven structure layer and an air layer sandwich structure layer, as best understood by Examiner.
Regarding claim 3, Cao teaches the adhesive anti-skid layer (adhesive anti-slip layer) comprises a hooking surface layer (hooking-connecting face layer) and an anti-skid layer (first anti-slip layer), wherein the anti-skid layer (first anti-slip layer) is arranged at a bottom of the adhesive anti-skid layer (adhesive anti-slip layer).
Regarding claim 5, Cao teaches the adhesive anti-skid layer (adhesive anti-slip layer) comprising an antiskid layer made from one of a thermoplastic elastomer layer, an ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA)/polyurethane (PU)/polyvinyl chloride (PVC)/styrene butadiene rubber (SBR)/cross-linked polyethylene (XPE) foamed material layer, a nonwoven fabric layer, a hot melt adhesive layer and a fabric layer with an anti-skid function (Cao, para 0019), reading on a material of the adhesive anti-skid layer (adhesive anti-slip layer) adopting a thermoplastic elastomer layer and/or an EVA/PU/PVC/SBR/XPE foam material layer and/or a non-woven fabric layer and/or a hot melt glue layer, as best understood by Examiner.
Regarding claim 6, Cao teaches a supportive layer of a fabric structure (supportive fabric structure layer) being placed between the hooked surface layer (hooking-connecting face layer) and the anti-skid layer (first anti-slip layer) (Cao, para 0020).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 217408418 to Cao, remaining as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-6 above..
NOTE: Us Pub. No. 2025/0072642 to Cao is being used as an English equivalent for prior art mapping.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5-6, in the event it is shown that Cao does not disclose the claimed invention with sufficient specificity, the invention is obvious because Cao discloses the claimed constituents and discloses that they may be used alternatively or in combination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the detachable carpet of Cao, wherein the carpet has the claimed structure, motivate by the desire of using disclosed, predictably suitable components in the detachable carpet layers and by the desire to successfully practice the invention of Cao based upon the totality of the teachings of Cao.
Regarding claim 4, Cao teaches bonding of the surface layer and the fabric bonding layer and bonding of the fabric bonding layer to the sticky layer through adhesive glue (Cao, para 0036, 0040). While Cao is silent on bonding between the hooking surface layer (hooking-connecting face layer) and an anti-skid layer (first anti-slip layer) of the adhesive anti-skid layer (adhesive anti-slip layer), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the carpet of Cao, wherein the hooking surface layer (hooking-connecting face layer) and an anti-skid layer (first anti-slip layer) are bonded using an adhesive glue, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known attachment methods disclosed as predictably suitable for bonding layers within the carpet.
Regarding claim 7, Cao teaches the height of the protruded monofilaments (raised monofilaments) being 0.5-10 mm and having a thickness of 18-10000dtex (Cao, para 0017), Cao teaches that if the protruded monofilaments are too high, a displacement is generated under the action of an external force when the surface layer is hooked with the adhesive anti-skid layer and if too low, the protruded monofilaments cannot be hooked firmly when being combined with the surface layer (Id.). While the reference does not specifically teach the claimed range of a height being 0.5 mm to 5 mm and a thickness of 20 dtex to 5000dtex of the raised monofilament, the disclosed range of the prior art combination overlaps with the instant claimed range. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust, vary, and optimize the height and thickness of the raised monofilament, such as within the claimed range, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of the prior art based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art and to ensure the monofilaments are firmly hooked when combined while ensure low displacement under action of an external force.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2020/0070038 to Vachon teaches attaching a hook and loop fastener using glue. CN 113598588/US 2024/0315475 to Cao teaches a hook layer formed of protruding monofilaments that are heat-treated to make their top ends melt/soften into bump and impart a certain degree of curvature and inclination so that can firmly hook with various carpets above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789