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 § 112
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.
Claim 72 is 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 72 is rejected for the recitation of “disposed at at least” in line 6. It is believed Applicant intended to recite “disposed at least on”. Applicant is advised to clarify the claim language.
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 72 and 87-90 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seto et al. (JP 2010/088730).
Regarding claims 72 and 87, Seto et al. teaches a method of making a flooring product and flooring product comprising a griege product comprising primary backing (base fabric 3 or a combination of base fabric 3 with backing 4) having a face side and a back side, a plurality of fibers tufted into the primary backing and extending from the face to form a face fiber of the griege product having a predetermined length, a secondary backing (backing layer 4 or 5 or the combination of 4 and 5) secured to the back side of the primary backing and a layer of polyester based material disposed on at least a portion of the face fiber [0009, 0015, 0027-0028, 0037 and Fig. 1]. Seto et al. are silent regarding the claimed property of wet delamination. However, given Seto et al. teach such a similar flooring product with such similar components and composition including the claimed layers and the layer of polyester base material, the claimed wet delamination property is inherent to the flooring product of Seto et al. 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). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 88, Seto et al. teaches the polyester based material comprises an aqueous dispersion and further comprises a water repellant material (paraffin and wax).
Regarding claims 89-90, Seto et al. are silent regarding the claimed properties. However, given Seto et al. teach such a similar flooring product with such similar components and composition including the claimed layers and the layer of polyester based material, the claimed properties are inherent to the flooring product of Seto et al. 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). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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 73-79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seto et al. (JP 2010/088730).
Regarding claim 73-75, Seto et al. teaches laminating the backing layer 5 to the backing layer (considered to be combination of layers 3 and 4). Seto et al. teaches polyester binder material and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the same resin polyester binder material (liquid glue) as a precoat material disposed on the backside of the primary backing (underside of layer 4) to laminate the layers 3 and 4 to layer 5 and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 76-77, Seto et al. teaches the layer of polyester based material can be applied to solely the yarns or the yarns and the base fabric and therefore is taught as both a discontinuous film and a continuous film.
Regarding claims 78-79, the layer of polyester based material at least partially and substantially encapsulates at least a portion of the plurality of fibers as the yarns are taught as being immersed in the resin.
Claims 80-86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seto et al. (JP 2010/088730) in view of Torlakoglu et al. (“Alkyd–amino resins based on waste PET for coating applications”, Waste Management, Vol. 29, Iss. 1, Jan. 2009, pp. 350-354).
Regarding claims 80-85, Seto et al. is silent regarding the claimed specifics of the polyester. However, Torlakoglu et al. teaches polyester based material that is polyethylene terephthalate ester-based and comprises acrylic modified alkyd resin in order to use recycled materials to make a binder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polyester based material that is polyethylene terephthalate ester-based and comprises acrylic modified alkyd resin of Torlakoglu et al in Seto et al. in order to use recycled materials to make a binder and arrive at the claimed invention. Given the previous combination teaches such a similar flooring product with such similar components and composition including the claimed layers, the layer of polyester base material and specifics of the polyester based material, the claimed properties are inherent to the flooring product of the previous combination. 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). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 86, Seto et al. and Torlakoglu et al. are silent regarding the claimed amount of the polyester-based material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed amount (which is notably a wide range) in order to affect the final yarn mechanical properties.
Prior Art Not Used but Relevant
CN 102712799 teaches polyester binder resin composition for carpets.
Conclusion
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