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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 11-22 are pending in the current application.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from consideration in the current application.
Claims 11-17 and 20 are amended in the current application.
Claims 21 and 22 are newly added in the current application.
Claims 1-10 are canceled in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed September 8, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the objections set forth in the previous office action.
The objections set forth in the previous office action are withdrawn due to the present claim amendments.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the previous office action.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the previous office action are withdrawn due to the present claim amendments.
Applicant argues that Baumann’s carpet fibrous substrate with surface treatment is fundamentally different and distinct from the carpet fiber board composition comprising the additive of the newly amended claims.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. The rejections under 35 USC 102 over Baumann are withdrawn due to the present claim amendments. New grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103 have been set forth below as necessitated by the present claim amendments. For the reasons set forth in the grounds of rejection below, Baumann in combination with Murdock and also Jenkner is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the presently claimed invention.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 15 and 16 recite the term “about.” In determining the range encompassed by the term "about," one must consider the context of the term as it is used in the specification and claims of the application. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 476 F.3d 1321, 1326, 81 USPQ2d 1427, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See MPEP 2173.05(b) III A. The specification as originally filed remains silent regarding a definition for the term “about.” For the purpose of examination limitations preceded by the term “about” are interpreted as including reasonable deviation/error associated with measurement as would be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites “the carpet fiber board-composition.” For the purposes of uniformity and consistency with claim 11, claim 17 should remove the hyphen, and be amended to instead recite “the carpet fiber board composition
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-17, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites “the carpet fiber boards have a water absorption of less than 20 wt%.” The specification as originally filed lacks support for the entirety of the scope of this recitation. The specification as originally filed at TABLES 1-4 only provides support for carpet fiber boards having a water absorption of less than or equal to 17.52 wt% (see Example 10). In view of the forgoing, claim 11 is considered to contain new subject matter not supported within the original disclosure, and is therefore, rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
Claim 11 recites “the carpet fiber boards have … a flexural strength of at least 4,000 psi as measured by DIN/EN 196-1.” The specification as originally filed lacks support for the entirety of the scope of this recitation. The specification as originally filed at TABLES 1-4 only provides support for carpet fiber boards having a flexural strength of at least 4,860 psi (see Example 14). In view of the forgoing, claim 11 is considered to contain new subject matter not supported within the original disclosure, and is therefore, rejected under 35 USC 112(a).
Claims 12-17, 21, and 22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, since these claims depend from the claim rejected above and do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies.
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 11-17, 21, and 22 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 11 recites the limitation "the carpet fiber board composition." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this recitation is referring to the previously recited “carpet fiber boards” or is referring to a specific composition that was not previously recited. For the purposes of examination, claim 11 is interpreted as referring to a specific composition that was not previously recited, and is interpreted as reciting “a carpet fiber board composition.”
Claims 12-17, 21, and 22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, since these claims depend from the claim rejected above and do not remedy the aforementioned deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11, 12, 14, 17, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (US 2016/0298290 A1) in view of Murdock et al. (US 2019/0338517 A1).
Regarding Claims 11, 21, and 22, Baumann teaches a carpet fibrous substate (i.e. carpet fiber board) article comprising a fibrous substrate (i.e., carpet fiber) having a first and a second surface and a surface treatment water repellency composition (i.e., an additive) added during the manufacturing process comprising an aqueous silicone emulsion, an aqueous dispersion of a silane, water, and a soil repellency component (i.e., a separate binding agent such as a phenol formaldehyde required by claims 21 and 22) (Baumann, Abstract, [0015]-[0025], [0065]-[0081], [0131]-[0220]). Baumann teaches the aqueous silicone emulsion comprises an aminopolysiloxane of Formula I that satisfies the organosilicon compound formula (I) of claim 1; where R1a (equivalent to R2c of claim 1) is a monovalent nitrogen-free halogen-substituted SiC-bonded C1-C6 alkyl radical with a being 0, 1, 2, or 3; R2b (equivalent to Da of claim 1) is a monovalent optionally substituted SiC-bonded basic nitrogen containing C1-C6 alkyl radical with b being 0, 1, 2, or 3; (OR3)c (equivalent to (OR1)b of claim 1) is a hydrogen atom or a C1-C8 alkyl radical with c being 0 or 1; and the sum of a + b + c is less than or equal to 3, and the average number for b is 1 (Baumann, [0029]-[0041], Formula I). Baumann teaches the surface treatment water repellency composition improves a carpet’s resistance to wetting and soiling (Baumann, [0002]-[0003], [0014], [0028], [0096]-[0112], [0123]-[0129]).
PNG
media_image1.png
27
152
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Baumann – Formula I
Baumann remains silent regarding the carpet fibrous substate (carpet fiber board) comprising carpet waste.
Murdock, however, teaches a composite material comprising carpet waste, a binding agent (such as phenol formaldehyde), and other additives (Murdock, Abstract, [0002]-[0007], [0016]).
Since Baumann and Murdock both disclose materials for carpet-based composite materials, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed Baumann’s carpet fibrous substrate with at least a portion of Murdock’s carpet waste to yield a composite that can reduce costs by reducing usage of virgin materials, re-utilizes waste streams, reduces post-consumer wastes, is capable of achieving water absorption of not more than about 3 wt% as taught by Murdock (Murdock, [0002]-[0007]).
Although modified Baumann does not explicitly disclose a water absorption of less than 20% and a flexural strength of at least 4,000 psi, modified Baumann’s carpet fibrous substate as discussed above appears to be substantially identical to the claimed carpet fiber board composition, and utilizes carpet wastes capable of achieving water absorption of not more than about 3 wt%. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01, I. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01, II. In view of the foregoing, modified Baumann’s carpet fibrous substate is considered to necessarily exhibit water absorption and flexural strength, and therefore, establishes a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness over the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Baumann teaches the organosilicon compound is a polyorganosiloxane having of a + b + c being less than or equal to 3 (Baumann, [0029]-[0041], Formula I).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Baumann teaches the surface treatment water repellency composition comprises a soil repellency component comprising an organopolysiloxane having a structural unit of General Formula VII that satisfies the polyorganosiloxane unit of formula (II) of claim 14 (Baumann, [0068]-[0069], Formula VII).
PNG
media_image2.png
24
165
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Baumann – General Formula VII
Regarding Claim 17, modified Baumann teaches the surface treatment water repellency composition is used in an amount of 0.8 to 1.2 wt% based on weight of the carpet fibrous substrate (Baumann, [0089]). Baumann’s range falls within the claimed range of 0.2 to 10 wt%, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Claims 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumann (US 2016/0298290 A1) in view of Murdock et al. (US 2019/0338517 A1) as applied to claims 11 and 14 above, and further in view of Jenkner et al. (US 2008/0233341 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Baumann teaches the carpet fiber board article comprising the fibrous substrate and the surface treatment water repellency composition additive as discussed above for claim 11. Modified Baumann teaches the aqueous silicone emulsion comprises an aminopolysiloxane Formula I and can include additional silane and/or silicone resins (Baumann, [0029]-[0045]).
Modified Baumann remains silent regarding a silane represented by formula (I) of claim 1 having a + b + c being equal to 4.
Jenkner, however, teaches a fiberboard composite composition comprising an aminoalkylsilane represented by formula (I) that satisfies the organosilicon compound formula (I) of claim 1; where (R3)r (equivalent to R2c of claim 1) is a H or a monovalent nitrogen-free halogen-substituted SiC-bonded C1-C8 alkyl group with r being 0, 1, or 2; R1R2N(CHR4)a (equivalent to Da of claim 1) is a monovalent optionally substituted SiC-bonded basic nitrogen containing H or alkyl groups; (OR)3-r (equivalent to (OR1)b of claim 1) is a hydrogen atom or a C1-C8 alkyl radical with 3-r being 1, 2, or 3 (Jenkner, Abstract, [0018]-[0035], [0047], [0082]-[0083], [0105]-[0106], Formula (I)).
PNG
media_image3.png
24
177
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Jenkner – Formula (I)
Since modified Baumann and Jenkner both disclose materials for fiberboard composite materials comprising organosilicon and silane-based compounds, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added Jenkner’s aminoalkylsilane into modified Baumann’s aqueous silicone emulsion to yield a composition that exhibits improved tensile strength, flexural strength, and improved swelling behavior as taught by Jenkner (Jenkner, [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Baumann teaches the carpet fiber board article comprising the fibrous substrate and the surface treatment water repellency composition additive as discussed above for claims 11 and 14. Modified Baumann teaches the aqueous silicone emulsion comprises an aminopolysiloxane Formula I and can include additional silane and/or silicone resins (Baumann, [0029]-[0045]).
Modified Baumann remains silent regarding an organopolysiloxane copolymer having a weight average molecular weight of about 250 to about 5,000.
Jenkner, however, teaches a fiberboard composite composition comprising an aminoalkylsilane represented by formula (I) and a functional silane compound represented by general formula (III) that has a total of x + y being from 1 to 1,000 (Jenkner, Abstract, [0040]-[0044], [0047], [0082]-[0083], [0105]-[0106], Formula (I)). Jenkner’s range applied to the molecular weights of each atomic/chemical group (H=~1, C=~12, N=~14, O=~16, Si=~28) yield embodiments having overall molecular weights that render obvious the claimed range of about 250 to about 5,000, and therefore, render obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
PNG
media_image4.png
34
263
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Jenkner – Formula (III)
Since modified Baumann and Jenkner both disclose materials for fiberboard composite materials comprising organosilicon and silane-based compounds, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed modified Baumann’s organopolysiloxane copolymer of General Formula VII according to the molecular weight guidance of Jenkner to yield a composition that exhibits improved tensile strength, flexural strength, and improved swelling behavior as taught by Jenkner (Jenkner, [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Baumann teaches the carpet fiber board article comprising the fibrous substrate and the surface treatment water repellency composition additive as discussed immediately above for claims 13 and 15.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7088. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 7 pm.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/Eli D. Strah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
