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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 114-123 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/27/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 127 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim does not end with any punctuation. Appropriate correction is required.
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 124-133 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 124 recites the limitation "the face surface" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 124-133 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferris (U.S PG Pub 20190390020A1) and Redondo Ronaldi (U.S PG Pub 20200299867A1).
Regarding claim 124, Ferris, drawn to the art of biodegradable textiles and fibers (Title), discloses biodegradable fibers attached to a backing to form a flooring product ([0081]; [0083]). Ferris discloses that polypropylene, polyester, nylon and such can be interchangeably used as fibers [0083], and discloses the use of PET as a fiber as well (Abstract). Ferris also discloses a filler (calcium carbonate) being a part of the fibers (Abstract). Further, with regarding to the backing having a face side and a backside, this would necessarily be the case, because a backing used in a carpet/rug is a 3-D material, i.e. it is three-dimensional, and would necessarily have a front and backside.
Regarding the limitation of the fiber comprising a biodegradation agent as claimed, Ferris has not explicitly disclosed such a biodegradation agent, however, it is known from Redondo Ronaldi to have such a biodegradation agent in fibers used in flooring materials (carpets/rugs).
Redondo Ronaldi, drawn also to the art of flooring products (carpet, rugs etc.) [0082], discloses fibers which comprise a composition that contains polyamide [0027-0028] and a biodegradation agent comprising glutaric acid derivatives and carboxylic acid derivatives [0054-0055], and further a chemoattractant that can be furanone [0053].
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the product of Ferris, with the biodegradation agent being a part of the fibers, as disclosed by Redondo Ronaldi, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to have a textile that has a significantly reduced environmental impact, without the shelf-life and desirable textile properties being adversely affected [0017].
Regarding claims 125-128, Ferris has disclosed the fibers degrading under conditions effective to cause biodegradability and under the influence of microorganisms in anaerobic digesters or landfills ([0015]). Note that for the sake of expediting prosecution, the examiner has addressed the landfill specified in the claim, but it is also necessary to clarify the actual breadth of the claim for the record. In light of the fact that this is a product claim rather than a method claim, the “route” or “location” are not deemed to be germane to patentability above and beyond the product being biodegradable as specified in claim 126.
Regarding claim 129, Ferris has disclosed the fibers being present in a yarn (Abstract).
Regarding claim 130, Ferris has disclosed the polyamide being nylon 6,6 [0032].
Regarding claim 131, Ferris disclosed fibers containing PET ([0058]; Abstract).
Regarding claim 132, Ferris discloses the fibers containing polypropylene (Abstract; [0083]).
Regarding claim 133, Ferris discloses the composition containing a filler that is calcium carbonate (Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lake et al (U.S PG Pub 20140221524A1) and Lake et al (U.S PG Pub 20080103232A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746