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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-7 in the reply filed on February 11, 2026 is acknowledged. However, During a telephone conversation with Addison D. Ault on March 2, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of claims 1-6 and 8. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-217298182 to Xiao in view of JP-2020-90743 to Imaoka.
Regarding Claims 1-2, 5 and 8
Xiao teaches a carpet comprising a top layer and a three dimensional breathable base layer (Xiao, abstract, background, specific implementation examples). Xiao teaches that the base layer comprises a bottom layer of mesh cloth, a three dimensional support layer of nylon coils (polyamide) provided thereon and a top layer of mesh cloth provided thereon wherein each layer is fixedly connected (Id.).
Xiao does not appear to teach that the top layer comprises a three dimensional, woven chenille fabric. However, Imaoka teaches a textile and carpet of chenille yarns having a diameter above 1 cm (8 to 20mm such as 11mm) which provides improved cushioning property to the carpet (Imaoka, abstract, description of embodiments). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite carpet structure of Xiao and to include as the face fabric, the chenille fabric of Imaoka, motivated by the desire to form a carpet structure having improved cushioning properties.
Regarding the limitation of being weaved by plain knitting needles using chenille threads, this limitation is a product-by-process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Claim(s) 3, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao in view of Imaoka as applied to claims 1-2, 5 and 8 above, in view of KR-101806475 to Chan.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4
The prior art combination does not appear to teach a hemming provided on an edge of the base layer or that the bottom layer is provided with evenly distributed glue dots at its bottom surface. However, Chan teaches a multilayer carpet configuration and a hemming (edge finishing unit) provided on the edge of the composite fabric (Chan, abstract, description of embodiments). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the carpet of the prior art combination and to include a hemming along the edge portions of the carpet as taught by Chan, motivated by the desire to form a conventional composite carpet having finished edges which are aesthetically pleasing and prevents the separation of individual layers.
Chan teaches that the bottom surface may be coated with glue (silicon/silicone) at regular intervals to prevent slipping (Id.). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the carpet of the prior art combination and to include a discontinuous coating of silicone as taught by Chan, motivated by the desire to form a conventional composite carpet having improved protection against slipping.
Regarding the shape of the glue deposits being dots, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to choose a dot shape, since applicant has not disclosed that a dot shape solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with alternatively shaped discontinuous coatings. Absent evidence of an unobvious difference, changes in shape do not distinguish an invention from that of the prior art [MPEP 2144.04].
Regarding the mesh size of the bottom layer being smaller than the mesh size of the top layer, there exists only three possible choices, bottom mesh being smaller, bottom mesh being larger or bottom mesh being the same as the top mesh. it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art to choose a bottom mesh having a mesh size smaller than the top layer since it involves nothing more than choosing from a finite number of choices (3) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 6
The prior art combination teaches that the outer layer of hemming comprises polyester fabric such as Lylex (Chan, description of embodiments). The prior art combination does not teach that the inner hemming layer is linen. However, Xiao teaches that flax fiber (linen) is utilized to provide insect-proof characteristics (Xiao, “the content of the utility model”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite carpet structure of the prior art combination and to incorporate within the inner hemming layer, linen fabric as taught by Xiao, motivated by the desire to form a conventional fabric having improved insect resistant properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT A TATESURE whose telephone number is (571)272-5198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-4PM EST.
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, Jennifer Chriss can be reached at 5712727783. 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.
/VINCENT TATESURE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights