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 72-77, 87 and 89-92 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higgins et al. (PG Pub. 2007/0286982).
Regarding claim 72, Higgins et al. teach a flooring product 2210 comprising a primary backing 2262 having a face side and a back side and a plurality of fibers tufted into the primary backing and extending from the face side to form a face fiber having a predetermined length. Higgins et al. teach a secondary backing (can be 2142 by itself or any of 2142, 2214, 2152, 2215 or combinations thereof) secured to the back side of the primary backing. A layer of polyester-based material 2217 disposed at least on a portion of the face fiber [0022]. The polyester-based material has a solid weight in the claimed range [0083].
Regarding claim 73, Higgins et al. teach a precoat material 2150 is disposed on the back side of the primary backing [Figure 24 and 0137].
Regarding claim 74, the precoat material latex, liquid hot melt adhesive, liquid glue or a combination thereof [0137].
Regarding claim 75, the precoat material comprises a material substantially identical to the polyester-based material [0085]. Higgins et al. teach the precoat is polyester-based material and that the precoat material can be substantially identical to the polyester -based material of the coating layer 17/2217.
Regarding claim 76, the layer of polyester-based material is present as a continuous film [0147].
Regarding claim 77, Higgins et al. teach the film coating can be applied at the face yarn or fabric level and therefore teaches the polyester-based material as a discontinuous film [0002].
Regarding claim 87, Higgins et al. teach a method of making a flooring product comprising providing a greige product comprising a primary backing 2262 having a face side and a back side having a plurality of fibers tufted thereinto and extending from the face side to form a fiber face having a predetermined length [Fig. 24]. Higgins et al. teach a secondary backing (can be 2142 by itself or any of 2142, 2214, 2152, 2215 or combinations thereof) adhered to the back side of the primary backing disposing a polyester-based material 2217 onto the face fiber of the greige product such that it forms a layer disposed on at least a portion of the face fiber of the face side of the primary backing [0022]. The polyester-based material has a solid weight in the claimed range [0083].
Regarding claims 89-90, Higgins et al. are silent regarding the claimed properties. -However, 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 91, the layer of polyester-based material is present as a continuous film [0147].
Regarding claim 92, Higgins et al. teach the film coating can be applied at the face yarn or fabric level and therefore teaches the polyester-based material as a discontinuous film [0002].
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.
Claim 88 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (PG Pub. 2007/0286982).
Regarding claim 88, Higgins et al. are silent regarding the polyester based material comprises an aqueous dispersion. However, given the limited number of options, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the polyester material an aqueous dispersion in order to have easy coating and to be environmentally friendly and have a reasonable expectation of success. Higgins et al. teach the polyester material is soil resistant material.
Claims 80-85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (PG Pub. 2007/0286982) 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, Higgins 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 Higgins 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).
Prior Art Not Used but Relevant
CN 102712799 teaches polyester binder resin composition for carpets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Seto have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Seto for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
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