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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species I, in the reply filed on July 28, 2026, is acknowledged. As acknowledged by Applicants, claims 35, 36, and 39-41 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim 44 is 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.
Regarding claim 44, the claim recites that between 50% and 80% of a weight of the carpet tile is from the first polymer fibers and the second polymer fibers attached to particles of latex. Applicants’ specification as originally filed does not teach the claimed limitation. Therefore, the limitation constitutes new matter.
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 19-24, 31-34, 37, 38, and 42-44 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.
Regarding claims 19-24, 31-34, 37, 38, and 42-44, claims 19 and 31 recite that a portion of the filaments “originate from the same source” as the plurality of fibers. It is unclear if the limitation is a structural limitation, compositional limitation, or a product by process limitation.
Regarding claims 33, 34, 37, and 38, claim 33 recites that a density of the plurality of filaments is less than a density of the plurality of fibers. It is unclear if the claimed density is directed to the mass per unit volume of the filaments in comparison to the fibers, or if the claimed density is directed to the density of a filament in comparison to the density of a fiber.
Regarding claims 42-44, claim 42 recites that the pad comprises a non-skid layer comprising a plurality of second polymer fibers attached to particles of latex, and polyurethane. It is unclear if the claimed polyurethane is a component of the pad or the non-skid layer.
Additionally, claim 42 recites that the non-skid layer is bonded to the bottom of the pad. Claim 42 is dependent from claim 19, which recites an adhesive. It is unclear if the adhesive bonds the non-skid layer to the bottom of the pad, or if the adhesive is separate from bonding the non-skid layer to the bottom of the pad.
Additionally, claim 42 recites that the adhesive is a cured latex. However, claim 42 depends from claim 19, which recites that the adhesive comprises a filler. It is unclear how claim 42 is consistent with claim 19, as the adhesive being a cured latex cannot appear to additionally comprise a filler.
Regarding claim 44, the claim recites that between 50% and 80% of a weight of the carpet tile is as claimed. The preamble of the claim recites the carpet or carpet tile. It is unclear if the claimed percentage is intended to only refer to the carpet tile, or if the claim intended to recite each of the carpet and carpet tile.
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 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 19-24, 31-34, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 7,514,026 to Zafiroglu in view of US Pub. No. 2004/0106346 to Zafiroglu (herein referred to as “Zafiroglu 2”).
Regarding claims 19-24, 31-34, 37, and 38, Zafiroglu teaches post-consumer or post-industrial fibrous floor coverings shredded to form a fibrous dispersion, wherein the shredded fibrous dispersion forms a durable backing particularly suitable for flooring applications, and a portion of the shredded fibrous dispersion can be diverted to form a face layer and/or adhesive layer for a reconstituted floor covering (Zafiroglu, Abstract, column 6 lines 18-31). Zafiroglu teaches that the dispersion comprises long fibers, short fibers, thermoplastic binder particles, powderized thermoset binder, and powderized dirt or dust (Id., column 3 lines 23-35). Zafiroglu teaches that the dispersion is optionally filtered to remove any powderized material including dirt and dust (Id., column 2 line 64 to column 3 line 22). Zafiroglu teaches that the dispersion comprises low-melt fibers such as polyolefin fibers including polyethylene or polypropylene, and high-melt fibers including polyester, nylon and the like (Id., column 4 lines 8-56). Zafiroglu teaches that the adhesive layer and face layer can be added to any one side of backing (Id., column 5 line 60 to column 6 line 11).
Zafiroglu teaches an exemplary mixture containing long fibers, short fibers, thermoplastic granules, and thermoplastic binder particles that were mostly attached to the short or long fibers (Zafiroglu, Example 2). Zafiroglu references US patent application Ser. No. 10/611,470 (i.e., Zafiroglu 2), wherein a floor covering comprising a multiayered textured composite having a structure as described in Zafiroglu 2, was produced by recycling the floor covering of Example 2 (see additionally Examples 1-5, column 3 lines 36-51). Although Zafiroglu does not appear to teach the binder being a latex binder, Zafiroglu 2 teaches a floor covering composite made from at least a fibrous outer layer and an adhesive layer (Zafiroglu 2, Abstract). Zafiroglu 2 teaches that the adhesive layer can be a thermoplastic or thermosetting composition, in particulate or liquid forms (Id., paragraph 0062). Zafiroglu 2 teaches that representative thermoplastic compositions include polyester (Id., paragraph 0063) and thermosetting adhesive including urethane adhesives and latex adhesives (Id., paragraphs 0065-0067). Zafiroglu 2 teaches that the adhesive materials are chosen to anchor and/or embed the fibers (Id., paragraph 0067).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the floor coverings of Zafiroglu, wherein the binder particles comprise latex particles, as taught by Zafiroglu 2, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional floor covering comprising adhesive binders known in the art as being functionally equivalent and predictably suitable for adhesive layers in similar floor coverings.
Since the fibrous dispersion comprising long fibers, short fibers and binder particles comprise each of the face layer, adhesive layer, and durable backing, the prior art combination appears to teach the claimed structure. Additionally, since the fibers are formed in the same recycling process, the fibers appear to originate from the same source.
Regarding claims 20 and 32, the prior art combination teaches that removing dust and dirt is optional. Therefore, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that dust and dirt may remain, such that additional steps are not required.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art combination teaches that the density of the batt may vary by heating, compressing, and cooling (Zafiroglu, column 5 line 60 to column 6 line 11). Additionally, since the prior art combination teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, the density of the pad appears capable of being configured.
Regarding claims 31-34, 37, and 38, the prior art combination teaches the claimed pad comprising long fibers, and an adhesive layer comprising fibers and a binder particle. Although the prior art combination does not describe the adhesive layer as a non-skid layer, an adhesive layer would additionally provide non-skid characteristics. Additionally, the recitation of a “non-skid” layer only appears to denote its function and does not appear to require additional characteristics distinguishing it from the invention of the prior art combination.
Regarding claim 33, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. However, the prior art combination teaches long and short fibers, including low-melt polyolefin and high-melt polyamide. Polyolefins are known in the art as having lower densities than polyamide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the floor coverings of the prior art combination, wherein the long fiber comprise polyolefin and the short fibers comprise polyamide, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional floor covering based on the totality of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 34, the prior art combination teaches thermosetting adhesives and suggests curing (Zafiroglu 2, paragraphs 0065-0066).
Claims 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zafiroglu in view of Zafiroglu 2, as applied to claims 19-24, 31-34, 37, and 38 above, and further in view of USPN 9,689,112 to Jenkines.
Regarding claims 42-44, the teachings of the prior art combination set forth above are incorporated herein, including the claimed pad and cured latex. The prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed non-skid layer. However, Jenkines teaches polyurethane floor covering products formed from applying a polyurethane foam formulation to a web layer containing a fiber web layer (Jenkines, Abstract). Jenkines teaches post-consumer fibers are entirely suitable, wherein the foam and the fibers become intimately and highly uniformly distributed in the process (Id., column 2 line 47 to column 3 line 2). Jenkines teaches that recovered fibers are often contaminated with other components such as small particles of a latex binder (Id., column 1 lines 23-33). Jenkines teaches that various types of binders can be applied to the web layer, including binder fibers, thermoplastic and/or thermosetting binders (Id., column 3 lines 39-49). Jenkines teaches that the fibers used to make the web layer include waste fibers from industrial processes, including preferably, postconsumer carpeting products, which may be contaminated with particles of a binder material (Id., column 3 line 50 to column 4 line 3). Jenkines teaches that the product can be taken to other downstream operations, such as affixing additional layers including a reinforcing layer, a carpet pile layer, and adhesive layer, and the like (Id., column 6 lines 1-28). Jenkines teaches that the cushioning product can be used as carpet underlayment, or for other padding and cushioning applications (Id., column 8 lines 38-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the floor coverings of the prior art combination, and including an underlayment cushion, such as claimed, as taught by Jenkines, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional floor covering comprising an additional layer of recycled fibers which predictably incorporates cushioning properties to similar floor covering products.
Regarding claim 43, the prior art combination teaches that high-melt fibers including polyester.
Regarding claim 44, the prior art combination teaches that an exemplary amount of recycled content is 76% (Zafiroglu, Example 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights