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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 9, 14 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higgins et al. (PG Pub. 2003/0175474).
Regarding claims 1, Higgins et al. teaches a carpet [Abstract] comprising a textile top member 112 including carpet yarns 120 and a nonwoven primary backing 122I that is coupled with the carpet yarns so that the backing structurally supports the carpet yarns. The nonwoven primary backing of the textile top member has a layered configuration comprising a first portion of fibers (113I upper layer in Fig. 2I) that are randomly oriented and entangled together (hydroentanglement is taught) [0149], a second portion of fibers (113I lower layer in Fig. 2I) that are randomly oriented and entangled together (hydroentanglement is taught) [0149] and a scrim reinforcement (103I in Fig. 2I) that the scrim reinforcement is that is positioned between and separates the first and second portion of fiberglass fibers so entirely covered and concealed by the entangled fiberglass fibers of the first portion and the second portion. The firs portion of fiberglass fibers are mechanically needled together with the second portion of fiberglass fibers so that the scrim reinforcement is mechanically bonded to the first portion of fibers and the second portion of fibers (It is also contemplated that the various layers may undergo a needling operation so as to force fibers across the interface between layers so as to establish a mechanical bond.) [0169]. The scrim reinforcement is configured to improve the primary backing’s ability to mechanically reinforce and stabilize the carpet yarns [0003]. A secondary backing [Abstract] is coupled with the textile top member via thermoplastic material [0207 and 0248].
Regarding claim 9, Higgins et al. teach the scrim is positioned in the primary backing with 5-95 wt% of the fibers above the scrim and from 5-95 wt% of the fibers below the scrim (equal weight percentages are taught above and below the scrim) [0170].
Regarding claim 14, the scrim is taught as having a binder [0156].
Regarding claims 24-25, Higgins et al. teach the carpet is a carpet tile or carpet rug [0004 and 0207].
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 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (PG Pub. 2003/0175474) in view of Deka (PG Pub. 2016/0281281).
Regarding claims 10-11, Higgins et al. teach the nonwoven glass scrim is a mat having a weight 17-170 g/m2 (0.5-5 ounces/yd2) [0156]. Higgins et al. is silent regarding the claimed thickness of the scrim. However, Deka teaches a scrim (woven or nonwoven glass mat) is a mat with a and thickness in the claimed range (thickness is taught as 9 to 11 mm in 0023 and then taught as 50-75% of the original thickness in 0038]) in order to ensure adequate strength. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed thickness of Deka in Higgins in order to ensure adequate strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Higgins et al. is silent regarding the claimed average fiber diameter. However, Deka et al. teach the fiber diameter as a results effective variable that affects strength and processing properties. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed fiber diameter given the teachings of the previous combination and in order to achieve the desired strength and processing properties.
Regarding claim 13, Higgins et al. is silent regarding the claimed bicomponent fibers. However, Deka teaches a scrim with bicomponent fibers which are attached and apart of the scrim in order to provide desired functionality to the scrim surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the bicomponent fibers in the scrim of Deka in Higgins et al. in order to provide the desired functionality to the scrim surface and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (PG Pub. 2003/0175474).
Regarding claim 17, Higgins et al. teaches in 0172 denier of the fibers of the first and second portions of the primary backing having a diameter in the claimed range. It is noted that even though Higgins et al. mentions the fiber are polypropylene in this paragraph, such would be applicable to the taught glass fibers as well. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed range of diameter based upon the teachings of Higgins in order to adjust and affect the properties including strength and flexibility of the scrim as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Higgins et al. teaches the scrim reinforcement is positioned between the outer cap layers (first and second fiber portions of the primary backing) and teaches the outer cap layers have a mass of 1 to about 4 ounces per square yard. Higgins et al. teaches embodiments wherein there is one cap layer only on the top of the glass scrim, embodiments wherein there is only one cap layer under the glass scrim and embodiments where there is a cap layer under and above the glass scrim. Therefore, Higgins et al. teaches varying the cap layer portions of fiber in the first and second fiber portions and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed positioning of the scrim reinforcement such that the claimed weight percentage of first and second portions of the primary backing exist in order to tailor the mechanical properties and strength of the primary backing in relation to the location of the glass scrim.
Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (PG Pub. 2003/0175474) in view of Himshedt et al. (PG Pub. 2020/0138221).
Regarding claims 19 and 21, Higgins et al. is relied upon as set forth in the rejections of claims 1 and 17 and fully incorporated herein by reference. Higgins et al. are silent regarding the claimed thickness of the secondary backing. However, Himshedt et al. teaches the secondary backing coupled with the textile top member has a thickness in the claimed range [0030] in order to tailor the properties including cushioning effect and strength. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the thickness of the secondary backing taught by Himshedt et al. in Higgins et al. in order to tailor the properties including cushioning effect and strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, Higgins et al. is relied upon as set forth in the rejections of claim 1 and fully incorporated herein by reference. Higgins et al. are silent regarding the claimed weight of the secondary backing. However, Himshedt et al. teach the secondary backing coupled with the textile top member has a weight in the claimed range [0031] in order to tailor the properties including cushioning effect and strength. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the weight of the secondary backing taught by Himshedt et al. in Higgins et al. in order to tailor the properties including cushioning effect and strength and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 22, Higgins et al. is relied upon as set forth in the rejections of claim 1 and fully incorporated herein by reference. Higgins et al. are silent regarding the claimed specifics of the secondary backing. However, Himshedt et al. teach the secondary backing coupled with the textile top member via thermoplastic material (108) comprises a first portion of polymer fibers that are randomly oriented and entangled together, a second portion of fibers that are randomly oriented and entangled together wherein the thermoplastic material penetrates into the first portion of polymer fibers to couple the secondary backing with the textile top member [0038 and Fig. 1] in order to provide more rigidity and wear resistance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the claimed secondary backing arrangement, composition and specifics of Himshedt et al. in Higgins et al. in order to provide more rigidity and wear resistance and arrive at the claim invention.
Regarding claim 23, Higgins et al. is relied upon as set forth in the rejections of claim 1 and fully incorporated herein by reference. Higgins et al. are silent regarding the claimed specifics of the secondary backing. However, Himshedt et al. teaches the secondary backing coupled with the textile top member further comprises a scrim reinforcement that is positioned between and separates the first portion of polymer fibers so that the scrim reinforcement is entirely covered and concealed by the entangled polymer fibers of the first portion and second portion of fibers to prevent the scrim reinforcement from exposure to a user, the scrim reinforcement being configured to mechanically reinforce and stabilize first and second portions of polymer fibers and to control penetration of the thermoplastic material so that the thermoplastic material does not penetrate into the second portion of polymer fibers [Abstract, 0029 and 0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the configuration and arrangement of Himshedt et al. in Higgins et al. in order to prevent the scrim reinforcement from exposure to a user and control penetration of the thermoplastic material and arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments concerning Himshedt et al. have been fully considered, but are not relevant as Himshedt et al. is not used as a primary reference and is used to teach the secondary backing limitations.
Applicant’s arguments concerning Visscher are mott as Visccher is not used in the present rejection.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Prior Art Relevant but Not Used
PG Pub. 2017/0314191 teaches scrim reinforcements.
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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Marla 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights