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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 1, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on June 1, 2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. New Claim 28 has been added. As such, Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 19-28 are currently pending in the application.
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 1-7, 9-16, and 19-28 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 claim(s) 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 inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “a single layer fiber component comprising fibers that are randomly oriented and entangled together” in lines 5-6. Support for this limitation is not found in the Specification, as originally filed. The Specification does not characterize the primary backing as a “single layer” fiber component with a reinforcement. The phrase “single layer” is not utilized in the Specification. While paragraph [0028] of the Specification presents an embodiment in which a primary backing is derived from multiple layers of materials that are formed into a “single integral nonwoven mat” via mechanical entangling, such a construction is not equated to a single layer fiber component. Rather, such a construction is emblematic of a single integral nonwoven mat derived of multiple layers. As such, Claim 1 and its dependent claims contain new matter.
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 1-4, 6, 7, 9-14, 16, 19-24, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0175475 to Higgins et al. (“Higgins”).
With regard to Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 16, Higgins discloses a construction for surface coverings, such as a carpet, comprising an upper pile fabric that provide carpet yarns and a primary backing layer of integral dimensionally stable character. See, e.g., Abstract, Figures 7A to 7GG, entire document. Higgins discloses that, in one embodiment, the primary backing comprises outer spunbond polyester or polypropylene layers, which structurally provide the claimed random fiber distribution and entanglement, sandwiching an interior stabilizing layer of nonwoven glass fiber. Paragraph [0170]. Higgins discloses that outer layers of thermoplastic nonwoven layers can be in a surrounding relation to the nonwoven glass layer. Paragraph [0168]. The glass fibers present in a nonwoven structure of Higgins would provide reinforcement for the carpet material. Higgins suggests that the multilayer construction of the primary backing can be provided in a single layer form. See, e.g., paragraph [0011] (“a cushioned carpet composite or tile is provided wherein a pile forming nylon yarn is tufted through a single layer or multi-layer stabilizing primary backing”) (emphasis added). For example, Higgins teaches that multiple layers of construction can be consolidated using physical entanglement, such as needle-punching. Paragraph [0159]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a single layer construction to the primary backing disclosed Higgins via consolidation of the sublayers to form a fully bonded primary backing, as suggested by Higgins. Higgins discloses that a secondary backing can be coupled to the upper pile fabric via a thermoplastic adhesive. Paragraph [0223]. Moreover, Higgins teaches that the backing materials can include thermoplastic adhesive fibers throughout their structure. Paragraph [0204]. With regard to the maximum load being at least 3 lbf/in (or alternatively at least 6lbf/in as recited in Claim 19), Higgins does not disclose the properties of maximum load and maximum elongation for the glass reinforcement fibers. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to presume that such properties are inherent to the material disclosed by Higgins. Support for the presumption is found because Higgins discloses using high tenacity fiber material, such as glass, for the reinforcing effect of the primary backing, which inherently possesses high strength and low elongation. The burden is upon the Applicant to show otherwise. Alternatively, providing reinforcement fibers with a maximum load of at least 3 lbf/in (or at least 6 lbf/in) and a maximum elongation of 65% (or 15%) are obvious optimizations in light of the teachings of Higgins. Higgins teaches that the primary backing material should have high dimensional stability and low stretch. Paragraph [0269]. As such, the person having ordinary skill in the art could easily and predictably select fiber material having high strength and low elongation to provide a suitable dimensional stability for the carpet material. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). With regard to Claims 3 and 6, Higgins teaches that the outer layers of the primary backing can include glass fibers or nylon fibers. Paragraph [0163]. With regard to Claim 9, Higgins discloses needle-punching the layered fibrous materials, paragraph [0198], which would provide homogenous distribution of fibers. With regard to Claim 10, Higgins discloses that entangled glass fibers can be made by wet-laying, dry-laying, needle-punching, or hydroentanglement, paragraph [0157], which would provide random distribution of the fibers. With regard to Claims 11-14, “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). In this instance, the defined structure of Claim 1 (and Claims 9 and 10) is that the reinforcement is disposed within the fiber component so that it is covered and concealed by entangled fibers, and that the reinforcement includes a plurality of reinforcement fibers distributed randomly or homogenously throughout the randomly oriented and entangled fiber component. This structure is accounted for in the rejections to Claims 1, 9, and 10. Whether a processing step occurs during build up or post-manufacture is inconsequential to the actual claimed structure, as no additional structural limitations are imposed, expressly or implicitly. The burden has been shifted to the applicant to show an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). With regard to Claim 20, Higgins discloses using backing fibers having a denier in the range of 0.5 to 15. Paragraphs [0172] to [0186]. With regard to Claims 21 and 23, Higgins discloses an embodiment in which the primary backing layer possesses a thickness of about 0.4 cm. Paragraph [0179]. A review of the drawings in Figure 7 readily shows that the thickness of the primary backing combined with the carpet yarns to provide a top member is roughly twice to three times that thickness. Moreover, the secondary backing layer of Higgins is displayed at roughly the same thickness as the primary backing layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a total carpet thickness in the range of 0.25 to 5 cm and a secondary backing thickness in the range of 0.05 and 10 mm since such thickness values are easily ascertainable from the figure of Higgins, and because the person having ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that such dimensions are suitable in the development of carpet materials for domestic and commercial use. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). With regard to Claim 22, Higgins discloses that the basis weight of a primary backing layer can be about 170 gsm. Paragraph [0179]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide a total carpet basis weight in the range of 50 to 2500 gsm because Higgins teaches the primary backing layer has a basis weight of 170 gsm, the additional layers of carpeting material should not have very dissimilar basis weight values, and because providing a carpet material with a basis weight outside of this range would render it unusable for many domestic and commercial applications. With regard to Claim 24, Higgins discloses the secondary backing material can comprise a nonwoven sheet formed from a first portion of polyester fibers, a second portion of polypropylene fibers, paragraph [0239], and be bonded to the upper portion of the carpet using a thermoplastic polyurethane foam. Paragraphs [0238] and [0240]. With regard to Claims 26 and 27, Higgins discloses that the textile construction can be used as a carpet tile or rug. Paragraph [0268].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0244310 to Visscher (“Visscher”).
With regard to Claim 5, Higgins does not disclose using bicomponent fibers. However, Higgins does disclose that the nonwoven fabrics can include low melting point fibers to that undergo thermal treatment to provide bonding via melt fusion. Paragraph [0174]. Visscher is also related to carpet materials and backing layers. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Visscher teaches that thermal bonding fibers for carpet backings can be present in either monocomponent or bicomponent form with the backbone polymer. Paragraphs [0005], [0006], and [0025]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include bicomponent fibers in the primary backing disclosed by Higgins in order to provide additional backbone to the thermal fusing fibers, as shown to be well known in the art as an alternative to monocomponent fibers by Visscher.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0138221 to Himstedt et al. (“Himstedt”).
With regard to Claim 15, Higgins does not disclose that the fibers comprise cellulose fibers. Himstedt is also related to carpet tile members comprising backing layers. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Himstedt teaches that nonwoven backing layers are often formed using polymer fibers in combination with cellulose fibers. Paragraph [0024]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include cellulose fibers in the backing layer disclosed by Higgins in order to utilize additional fiber resources, including naturally derived fibers, that can offer additional tactile properties, such as softness, and because Himstedt establishes that such a modification is one of routine in the art of carpet backing layers and can be effectuated without any undue burden.
Claims 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,975,224 to Ruzek et al. (“Ruzek”).
With regard to Claim 25, Higgins does not that the secondary backing comprises a scrim reinforcement that is positioned between a first portion of polymer fibers and a second portion of polymer fibers, similar in structure to the primary backing layer. Ruzek is also related to multi-layered composites useful in the construction of carpets. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Ruzek teaches that dimensionally stable nonwoven webs that are used as primary backing layers can also be used as secondary backing layers. Column 6, lines 13-22. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize a secondary backing layer in the composite material of Higgins with a similar structure to that of the primary backing layer in order to provide a sturdier carpet material for high-use applications because Ruzek teaches that primary backing layers can also act as secondary backing layers without any undue burden. With regard to Claim 28, Higgins does not disclose using high tenacity polyester or polyolefin fibers. However, Ruzek teaches that high tenacity polyester is suitable for use in nonwoven fabrics for primary carpet backings. Column 1, line 45 – column 2, line 22. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use high tenacity polyester in the primary backing disclosed by Higgins in place of the glass fibers in order to provide a material that is uniformly thermoplastic in nature, as shown to be known by Ruzek.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the reinforcement fibers of the present invention are part of a single layer and are distributed throughout the single layer component. However, a single layer component does not preclude an embodiment in which multiple layers are initially provided, and then physically entangled to ultimately produce a single layer composite. Higgins renders obvious such a construction, teaching needle-punching of the layers to consolidate the material. Moreover, Higgins recognizes that single-layer and multiple-layer are both suitable in their invention. Thus, the person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that needle-punching multiple sublayers into a single layer of composite material to be modification that can be achieved without any undue burden.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY R PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am to 5 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, Marla D. 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.
JEREMY R. PIERCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/JEREMY R PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights