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 Arguments/Amendments
1. Applicant argues that the combination of Sentinel 626 and Vitomir is improper as Sentinel 626 uses an aqueous solution while Vitomir uses an organic solution, and further that Vitomir requires removal of carpet prior to application. In regard to these arguments, the only incorporated element of Vitomir as it pertains to the composition of claim 1 is the composition of Vitomir. The removal of flooring of Vitomir is a specific embodiment of Vitomir not being incorporated into the method of Sentinel 626, and Vitomir does not teach away from the application of their composition to adhesive that is still bonded to carpet. Further, since the composition of Sentinel 626 is being replaced with the composition of Vitomir, the differences of composition of prior art sources do not establish an incompatibility between the method and composition and this argument is therefore unpersuasive.
2. Applicant argues that Vitomir does not teach that the affected PSA is softened as Vitomir teaches that the adhesive is transformed into a solid, dry material. It was noted in the rejection of the prior Office Action that the Vitomir turned the adhesive into a “dry non-tacky material”. In making the material non-tacky, this softens the adhesive as it has lost adhesive strength or “tackiness”. For this reason this argument is unpersuasive.
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.
3. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sentinel (NPL YouTube Video- “Removing Carpet & Carpet Adhesive with Sentinel 626”; dated 11/6/2018; previously presented) in view of Vitomir (US 2022/0010100; previously presented).
Regarding claim 1, Sentinel teaches a method of removing carpet from a subfloor to which the carpet is affixed (title; transcript from 0:00-0:05) comprising the steps of applying to the affixed carpet a solvent composition (Sentinel 626 solution; Screenshot 1; transcript from 0:21-1:09), wherein the organic solvent composition is applied in an amount and for a time sufficient for the solvent composition to penetrate the affixed carpet (transcript from 1:18-1:25), and removing the carpet from the subfloor (Screenshot 2; transcript from 1:27-1:43). It is noted by Sentinel that the solvent composition softens the adhesive (transcript from 2:30- 2:41), so the application of the solvent composition to both the carpet and adhesive would consequentially be softening the adhesive.
Sentinel does not teach that the adhesive removed is a pressure sensitive adhesive. In a related art, Vitomir teaches that pressure-sensitive adhesives have been used in flooring, and is advantageous as it can be applied to hard, soft, and flexible flooring ([0005]). The pressure-sensitive adhesive is removed with various mixtures ([0006]), which makes this suggestion relevant to Sentinel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention that the adhesive being removed in Sentinel is a pressure-sensitive adhesive as such a configuration is known in the prior art and can be applied to hard, soft, and flexible flooring.
Sentinel does not teach that the solvent composition is an organic solvent with an organic alcohol. Further, Comment 2 dated to 2021 noted that the solvent was ineffective, specifically noting that the adhesive became an “oily, slippery mess”, which provides a strong motivation for an alternative solvent. In a related art, Vitomir teaches of a solvent composition to remove adhesives that overcomes the slippery issue by turning the adhesive into a dry non-tacky material ([0010]), thus eliminating the “oily, slippery mess”. Vitomir’s solvent composition is directly relevant to removing pressure sensitive adhesives ([0002]). Vitomir’s solvent composition comprises benzyl alcohol ([0012]), and potentially an alkaline activator (amine accelerator- [0033]). Benzyl alcohol can be present in an amount of more than 65 wt. % ([0022]). In combination with the minimum values of 0.1 wt. % for linear alcohol ethoxylates ([0023]), 0.1 wt.% for bentonite ([0024]), 10 wt. % magnesium oxide ([0025]), and 0.3 wt. % talc ([0026]), a maximum value of 89.5 wt. % of benzyl alcohol is contemplated by Vitomir. This establishes a range between 65% and 89.5% wt. % of benzyl alcohol. It is noted that a claimed range which overlaps, lies within, or is near a prior art range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness for using values in the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to use the solvent composition of Vitomir in the method of Sentinel for the advantage of eliminating the “oily, slippery mess” of Sentinel’s solvent composition.
Regarding claim 2, Sentinel teaches of cutting the carpet before applying the step of applying the organic solvent composition (Screenshot 3; transcript from 0:05-0:21).
Regarding claim 3, the subfloor of Sentinel appears to be a cementitious material (Screenshot 4). However, Comment 3 dated to 2022 noted that a flooring-adhesive-cement layout is common, and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention that the subfloor of Sentinel could be of a cementitious material as such an arrangement is known in the prior art. It should also be noted that Applicant states that carpet is typically installed on cementitious subfloors in their Specification (Specification filed 04/25/2024- [0004]), and that Vitomir also suggests the possibility of concrete subfloors (Vitomir- [0005]) which gives further evidence that such is known in the art.
Regarding claim 4, as noted in the rejection of claim 1, the range of Vitomir’s benzyl alcohol content is between 65%- 89.5 wt. %. The upper value of 89.5% is near the claimed range of equal to or higher than 90 wt%, and as noted in claim 1 establishes a prima facia case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 5, since the alkaline activator is optional in claim 1, further limitations pertaining to the alkaline activator are also optional. However, Vitomir also teaches that alkaline activator can be ethanolamine ([0033]).
Regarding claim 7, since the alkaline activator is optional in claim 1, further limitations pertaining to the alkaline activator are also optional. However, Vitomir also teaches that an alkaline activator is present in the amount of 1-10 weight percentage ([0033]). It is noted that a claimed range which overlaps, lies within, or is near a prior art range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness for using values in the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, in applying Vitomir as in claim 1, Vitomir teaches that after application the organic solvent composition should remain on the surface for at least 2 hours ([0016]). It is noted that a claimed range which overlaps, lies within, or is near a prior art range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness for using values in the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, in applying Vitomir as in claim 1, Vitomir teaches that there is substantially no PSA remaining on the subfloor (([0021]).
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 6, in applying Vitomir as in claim 1, Vitomir does not teach or render obvious that the organic alcohol comprises benzyl alcohol and is present in an amount equal to or higher than 95% wt. %.
5. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30am-5:00 pm 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, Philip Tucker can be reached on 571-273-1095. 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.
/ALEXANDER S WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/ALEX B EFTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights