DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 6/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites the limitation “before the tufting process of in.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-13 are 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.
Claims 1-13 recite the limitation “polyester-based.” It is unclear what falls within the scope of the term “polyester-based” and what does not.
Claims 1 and 2 recite the limitation “the stiffness before tufting process.” It is unclear if this limitation refers to a particular tufting process.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a deviation between the machine direction (MD) tensile strength (TMD,0) and the cross direction (CD) tensile strength (TCD,0).” It is unclear what the deviation represents (or how it is calculated).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-4, 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen et al. (US Patent No. 7,994,079 B2), with evidence from Wikipedia (“Polyethylene terephthalate”).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 13, Chen teaches scrubbing pads that are generally of a multi-layer construction and include a nonwoven abrasive layer secured to an absorbent layer which includes a nonwoven paper web (col. 11, lines 35-38). In one embodiment, the abrasive fibers may have a melting point of from about 120° C. to about 350° C. (col. 3, lines 16-24). The abrasive layer may also comprise "4DG" fibers (specialty PET deep grooved fibers, with an eight-legged cross-section shape) (col. 13, lines 52-60; also col. 12, lines 51-53). As evidenced by Wikipedia, PET has a melting point of > 250 °C. As adhesive material between layers, a fiber comprising two different varieties of polylactic acid may be used, for polylactic acid may have melting points ranging from about 120° C. to 175° C. (col. 25, lines 4-11). The abrasive layers and/or the laminated products may have a Gurley stiffness of about 2500 mg or less, specifically about 1500 mg or less, more specifically about 800 mg or less, more specifically still about 400 mg or less, and most specifically about 200 mg or less, such as from about 40 mg to 350 mg or from about 80 mg to about 400 mg (col. 33, lines 44-50). These stiffness values may be the maximum value obtainable for measurements in any direction of the web or product (the maximum stiffness), or in the machine direction or cross-direction (MD or CD stiffness, respectively) (col. 33, lines 50-54 and Examples 2-3). Therefore, Chen meets the claimed Gurley stiffness limitation in both the machine direction (MD) and the cross-direction (CD).
In the alternative, Chen teaches in Example 2 a meltblown web that has an average MD Gurley stiffness of 138.8 mg, with a standard deviation of 35.9 mg, and a CD Gurley stiffness of 150 mg, with a standard deviation of 34.0 mg (col. 42, lines 27-31). Chen teaches in Example 3 a meltblown web that has an average MD Gurley stiffness of 113.7 mg, with a standard deviation of 34.5 mg, and a CD Gurley stiffness of 113.0 mg, with a standard deviation of 41.9 mg (col. 46, lines 63-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the Gurley stiffness ranges taught by Chen (e.g., about 80 mg to about 400 mg) in both the machine direction and the cross direction of the nonwoven fabrics because Chen teaches examples in which the Gurley stiffness values fall within the disclosed ranges in both directions, and as Chen’s teaching that stiffness values may be the maximum value obtainable for measurements in any direction of the web or product would also reasonably suggest that the disclosed ranges apply to both directions.
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches that, in addition to conventional bicomponent binder fibers, a fiber comprising two different varieties of poly lactic acid may be used, for polylactic acid may have melting points ranging from about 120° C. to 175 °C., allowing one form with a high melting point to serve as the core with a lower melting point variety serving as the sheath (col. 25, lines 6-11).
Regarding claim 8, Chen teaches that the abrasive layer of the scrubbing pad may usually be greater than about 10 grams per square meter (gsm) in basis weight (col. 4, lines 35-40). More specifically, the abrasive layer may be between about 25 and about 200 gsm in basis weight, more specifically still between about 30 and 150 gsm, and most specifically between about 40 gsm and 130 gsm (col. 4, lines 35-40). In an embodiment, hot melt or cured adhesive is applied joining the two layers, wherein the basis weight of the adhesive is about 5 gsm or greater, such as from about 10 gsm to about 50 gsm, more specifically from about 15 gsm to about 40 gsm (col. 25, lines 45-50, and col. 27, lines 57-63). Alternatively, the basis weight of the added adhesive may be less than about 5 gsm (col. 25, lines 50-51).
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Choi ‘754 (KR20160037754A, see attachment).
Regarding claims 1-2, 8-9 and 11, Choi ‘754 teaches a polyester spunbond non-woven fabric in which a material of a first filament is a general polyester with a melting point of 250°C or higher, preferably polyethyleneterephthalate (PET), and a material of the second filament is a low-melting point copolyester polymerized by adding adipic acid or isophthalic acid to general polyester to a melting point at least 30°C lower than that of the first filament ([0019]; also [0015] and [0018]). Choi ‘754 teaches spinning 80 to 95% by weight of the first filament and 5 to 20% by weight of the second filament ([0021]). Choi ‘754 also teaches mixing the first filaments having a fineness of 4 to 10 denier and the second filaments having a fineness of 3 to 6 denier by mixing yarns ([0018]). (Also see Example 1).
With respect to the claimed stiffness, heat shrinkage and intrinsic viscosity properties, the examiner notes that the materials, structure and production method of Choi ‘754 are the same as or are substantially the same as that disclosed by applicant (also see [0020] of Choi). Thus, it is the position of the Office that the nonwoven fabric of Choi ‘754 would have the claimed properties as the same compound necessarily has the same properties. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to expect that the claimed properties would be so provided, as the reference teaches the same or substantially the same materials and methods as those claimed and disclosed, and as the properties cannot be separated from the materials. 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). Therefore, absent an objective showing to the contrary, Choi ‘754 meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 3, Choi ‘754 teaches, in Example 1, that a first filament is a general polyethylene terephthalate having a melting point of 250 ° C or higher and an intrinsic viscosity (IV) of 0.655 ([0039]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 4, Choi ‘754 teaches that the second filament of the low-melting-point copolyester is melted by heating to serve as an adhesive so that the first filament of the general polyester can be fixed by forming a web ([0020]).
Regarding claim 5, Choi ‘754 teaches the material of the first filament is a general polyester with a melting point of 250°C or higher, preferably polyethyleneterephthalate (PET), and the material of the second filament is a low-melting point copolyester polymerized by adding adipic acid or isophthalic acid to general polyester to a melting point at least 30°C lower than that of the first filament ([0019]).
Regarding claims 6-7, Table 2 of Choi ‘754 shows that in Example 1, TMD,0 is 25.0 kg/5cm, and TCD,0 is 25.3 kg/5cm. As calculated by the examiner TCD,0x0.05 = 1.265. Therefore, the deviation between TMD,0 and TCD,0 would be less than TCD,0x0.05. Table 2 also shows that, in Example 1, TMD,0 decreases to 16.8 kg/5cm and TCD,0 decreases to 17.2 kg/5cm after tufting, which the examiner notes each represents tensile strength reductions of less than 60%.
Regarding claim 10, Table 2 of Choi ‘754 shows that Examples 1-5 have MD and CD tear strengths before a tufting process within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, Choi ‘754 teaches that the polyester spunbond nonwoven fabric is for a carpet base material ([0001]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi ‘754 (KR20160037754A, see attachment), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kim (KR102039074B1, see attachment).
Regarding claim 9, Choi ‘754 remains as applied above, teaching the claimed limitations.
In addition, Kim teaches a spunbond nonwoven fabric that is capable of realizing a carpet base paper (Abstract). Kim teaches that the heat shrinkage at 180 ℃ is 0.2 ~ 0.6% ([0022]). In order to manufacture a spun bond for carpet foam with improved shape stability, a product having a low shrinkage rate at a high temperature of 180 ° C. or higher can be manufactured in a consistent process, and the shrinkage rate in a non-woven machine direction (MD) and a cross direction (CD) should be able to express the same level ([0024]). Kim’s Table 4 shows that Examples 1-5 also meet the claimed limitation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the nonwoven fabric with a heat shrinkage at 180 ℃ after 3 minutes of 0.2 ~ 0.6% in both the machine direction and the cross direction in order to obtain a fabric for a carpet backing with improved shape stability, as suggested by Kim ([0022] and [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, the examiner notes that, in Examples 1-5, Kim teaches a high-melting-point polyester with an intrinsic viscosity of 0.655, and a low-melting-point copolymer polyester with an intrinsic viscosity of 0.760 ([0043]-[0044] and [0049]-[0056]). As calculated by the examiner, (I.V.2-I.V.1)/I.V.1 would be 0.16.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi ‘754 (KR20160037754A, see attachment), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Choi ‘379 (KR 20140042379 A, see attachment).
Regarding claim 12, Choi ‘754 remains as applied above.
Choi ‘754 further teaches mixing the first filaments having a fineness of 4 to 10 denier and the second filaments having a fineness of 3 to 6 denier by mixing yarns ([0018]).
Choi ‘754 does not explicitly disclose wherein the number of filaments of the first component filament is included by a factor in the range of two to five times the number of filaments of the second component filament.
However, Choi ‘379 teaches a polyester nonwoven fabric that comprises first filaments having a fineness of 4 to 10 denier and second filaments having a fineness of 3 to 6 denier ([0031]). The number of the first filaments is 70 to 95% of the total number of the first and second filaments, and the number of the second filaments is to be 5 to 30 % ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have made the number of the first filaments 70 to 95% of the total number of the first and second filaments, and the number of the second filaments 5 to 30% of the total number of the first and second filaments in order to provide the carpet backing nonwoven fabric with a number of bonding points that results in good strength and heat shrinkage properties, as suggested by Choi ‘379 ([0034]-[0036] and Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jang et al. (WO2019245217A1, with US 2021/0198821 A1 relied upon as an English translation) teaches a nonwoven fabric for primary carpet backing. Jang is pertinent to claims 1-8 and 13.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights