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 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 72-77 and 80-92 are 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.
Claims 72 and 87 recite “a layer of polyester-based material encompassing the face fiber but not disposed on any backside stitches of the plurality of fibers tufted into the primary backing”. Support does not exist to recite the polyester based material is not disposed on any backside stitches in the specification as originally filed. While the specification does state the coating is applied to face fibers, it is not clear if the coating penetrates is disposed on the backside stitches. Therefore, support does not exist to recite the polyester based material is not disposed on any backside stitches in the specification as originally filed. Applicant is advised to amend or cancel the claims.
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 2008/285803).
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 encompassing the face fiber, but not disposed on any of the back side stitches of the plurality of fibers tufted in to the primary backing [0022, Fig. 1 and Examples]. 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 and 91-92 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seto et al. (JP 2008/285803).
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 and 91-92, Seto et al. teaches the layer of polyester based material can be applied to solely the yarns or the yarns and the base fabric (i.e. with or without penetrating agent which causes the coating to the reach the base fabric [0030]) and therefore is taught as both a discontinuous film and a continuous film.
Claims 80-86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seto et al. (JP 2008/285803) 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments concerning Seto have been fully considered, but are moot as Seto (JP 2010/088730) is not used in the present rejection, but rather Seto JP 2008285803 is set forth in rejection of the claims. Applicant argues, the cited art does not teach the claimed wet delamination property because the cited art does not teach the polyester based material not disposed on any back side stitches. However, Seto JP 2008285803 does teach the polyester based material not disposed on any back side stitches and therefore 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.
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