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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on January 27, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 19, and 25 have been amended. Claims 8, 17, and 18 have been cancelled. As such, Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 19-27 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102/103
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.
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, 20, 24, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, 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]. Higgins notes that the nonwoven constructions can also include other entangled structures, such as needlepunched or hydroentangled structures. Paragraph [0009]. The glass fibers present in a nonwoven structure of Higgins would provide reinforcement for the carpet material. 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 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins.
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.
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.
Claim 25 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the fiber component of the primary backing layer is a single layer component. The Examiner disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the primary backing layer being a single layer component) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The phrase “single layer” does not appear in the claims, nor does either the words “single” or “layer” present in any manner. The presence of multiple layers in the composite structure of Higgins is not precluded from the presently claimed structure.
Applicant argues that the glass fibers disclosed by Higgins are not high tenacity fibers. However, there is no evidence of record to support the argument that the glass fibers disclosed by Higgins do not possess the claimed properties of having a maximum load of at least 3 lbf/in and a maximum elongation of 65%. Arguments presented by Applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. M.P.E.P. 2145(I). The Specification of the present application does not list materials which possess the claimed properties, nor does the Specification provide a list of materials that do not possess the claimed properties. As such, there is no evidence to overcome the allegation of inherency. Even if the Office were to accept Applicant’s argument that high tenacity fibers are engineered to have the characteristics of Claim 1 through drawing and stretching processes to align the molecular structure of synthetic fibers, the Office has already provided an alternative grounds of rejection that 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. High tenacity engineered fibers are not novel, nor are they difficult to obtain or purchase. Higgins teaches the person having ordinary skill in the art that the primary backing material should have high dimensional stability and low stretch. Paragraph [0269]. As such, the selection of fibers that possess these properties does not render the claims non-obvious. “[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).
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 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