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 .
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 21-23, 25, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,536,551 to Woosley (“Woosley”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0159064 to Rowell et al. (“Rowell”).
With regard to Claims 21-23 and 29, Woosley discloses a tufted pile fabric comprising a backing fabric formed of a fibrous substrate having high-melt fibers and low-melt fibers and a plurality of pile yarns that extend through the backing fabric to provide a face portion of tufts and a back side portion of tufts. See, e.g., Abstract, Figures 3 and 4, entire document. Woolsey discloses that the fabric finds excellent use as a liner in automobile floor carpeting, trunks, door panels, and seat backs. Column 5, lines 24-30. As such, the tufted pile fabric of Woosley functions as an artificial turf floor or base covering for automobiles. Woosley teaches that the backing fabric preferably has a nonwoven construction, column 4, lines 11-12, the low-melt fibers have a melting point that is lower than about 171 degrees C., and the high-melt fibers have a higher melting point than the low-melt fibers. Column 2, lines 13-16. The pile yarns of Woosley correspond to the claimed plurality of turf fibers because Woosley shows that the pile yarns extend through the backing layer to form a face side of the tufted pile fabric, Figures 3 and 4, and the backside portions of the pile yarns are bonded to themselves using heat. Column 2, lines 34-50. Woosley discloses that the low-melt fibers in the nonwoven backing layer are heated to provide bonding with the pile yarns. Column 4, lines 50-67. Woosley does not disclose the denier of the low-melt fibers and the high-melt fibers in the backing layer. Rowell is also related to automotive carpeting comprising nonwoven backing layers. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Rowell teaches that structural high-melt fibers in a backing layer can have a denier in the range of 10 to 25, paragraphs [0019] and [0020], while low-melt binder fibers in a backing layer can have a denier in the range of 2 to 16. Paragraph [0021]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the high-melt structural fibers of Woosley with a denier in the range of 10 to 25 and the low-melt binder fibers of Woosley with a denier in the range of 2 to 16 in order to provide a suitable denier range such that the structural fibers of the nonwoven fabric provide suitable support and the binder fibers of the nonwoven fabric provide suitable bonding, as shown to be known in the art by Rowell. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. M.P.E.P. 2144.05(I). With regard to Claim 25, the backside portions of the pile yarns are bonded to themselves using heat. Column 2, lines 34-50. With regard to Claims 27 and 28, Woosley does not require the presence of a secondary backing. Moreover, Woosley discloses that its artificial turf “consists of” the nonwoven backing layer and the pile yarns because Woosley establishes that no additional layers or back coatings are required. See, e.g., Figures 3 and 4 and column 1, lines 33-34.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woosley in view of Rowell as applied to Claim 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,660,910 to Hoyt et al. (“Hoyt”).
With regard to Claim 24, the combination of Woosley with Rowell does not disclose using high-melt fibers having a denier of 50 to 1000. Hoyt is also related to nonwoven fabrics useful in backing materials for carpeting. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Hoyt teaches that the nonwoven fabrics can be provided with reinforcement filaments with a denier greater than 50 to provide improved strength. Column 2, lines 33-37 and column 5, lines 10-19. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide high-melt fibers having a denier of at least 50 in the nonwoven backing disclosed by the combination of Woosley with Rowell in order to increase the strength of the backing material, as shown to be known by Hoyt.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woosley in view of Rowell as applied to Claim 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0152191 to Dijkema et al. (“Dijkema”).
With regard to Claim 26, the combination of Woosley with Rowell does not specifically describe the nonwoven backing layer as being homogenous. However, Woosley suggests such a configuration by teaching the person having ordinary skill in the art that the low-melt fiber and the high-melt fiber should be intermingled. Column 4, lines 10-13. Dijkema is also related to a tufted fabric comprising a nonwoven backing material that contains high-melt structural fibers and low-melt bonding fibers. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Dijkema teaches that nonwoven fabrics containing both high-melt fibers and low-melt fibers should be thoroughly mixed to ensure a homogenous mixture of fibers. Paragraph [0018]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the nonwoven backing fabric disclosed by the combination of Woosley with Rowell with a homogenous mixture of low-melt and high-melt fibers in order to ensure sufficient bonding throughout the entirety of the backing layer, as shown to be known by Dijkema, and as sought to be desired by Woosley to intermingle the types of fibers.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woosley in view of Rowell as applied to Claim 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0075025 to Ueda et al. (“Ueda”).
With regard to Claim 30, the combination of Woosley with Rowell does not disclose the thickness of the nonwoven backing layer. Ueda is also related to carpet material for use in automobiles. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Ueda teaches that a nonwoven fabric layer provided with a thickness in the range of 1 to 15 mm can provide suitable sound absorption properties. Paragraph [0019]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the thickness of the nonwoven backing layer disclosed by the combination of Woolsey with Rowell with a thickness in the range of 1 to 15 mm in order to provide a suitable for thickness in the art of vehicle carpeting that provides suitable properties, such as sound absorption, as shown to be known by Ueda.
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woosley in view of Rowell as applied to Claim 21 above, and further in view of Japanese Patent Application Publication No. H09-256255 to Yakake et al. (“Yakake”).
With regard to Claims 31 and 32, the combination of Woosley with Rowell does not disclose the density of the nonwoven backing layer. Yakake is also related to primary backing nonwoven layers useful in carpeting materials. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Yakake teaches that suitable fabric density values for such materials is 0.15 to 0.4 g/cc, page 8, which is about 9 to 25 lbs./cubic foot. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the nonwoven fabric disclosed by the combination of Woosley with Rowell with a density in the range of 3 to 10 lbs./cubic feet in order to provide a practical density value for use in carpeting, as shown to be known in the art by Yakake.
Claims 21-23, 25, 27-29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0244310 to Visscher (“Visscher”) in view of Rowell.
With regard to Claim 21-23, Visscher discloses a primary carpet backing comprising a first and a second layer of fibers, characterized in that both the first and the second layer of fibers is a nonwoven layer of randomly laid fibers, that both the first layer of fibers and the second layer of fibers has a uniform composition throughout the layer, wherein the linear density of the fibers is in the range of 1 to 25 dtex, wherein both the first layer of fibers and the second layer of fibers includes at least two different polymers and wherein at least one polymer included in the first layer is different from the polymers included in the second layer. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Visscher discloses that the primary backing material is tufted to obtain a griege carpet with a face side showing tufts and a back side where the tufts extend to form back stitches. Paragraph [0009]. Visscher discloses that the carpet finds excellent use in automotive applications. Paragraph [0016]. As such, the tufted carpeting with the nonwoven backing of Visscher functions as an artificial turf floor or base covering for automobiles. Visscher teaches that the nonwoven fabric can include lower melting polymer to provide a binder for the fabric. Paragraph [0022]. Visscher does not disclose the particular denier values of the low-melt fibers respective to the high-melt fibers in the backing layer. Rowell is also related to automotive carpeting comprising nonwoven backing layers. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Rowell teaches that structural high-melt fibers in a backing layer can have a denier in the range of 10 to 25, paragraphs [0019] and [0020], while low-melt binder fibers in a backing layer can have a denier in the range of 2 to 16. Paragraph [0021]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the high-melt structural fibers of Visscher with a denier in the range of 10 to 25 and the low-melt binder fibers of Visscher with a denier in the range of 2 to 16 in order to provide a suitable denier range such that the structural fibers of the nonwoven fabric provide suitable support and the binder fibers of the nonwoven fabric provide suitable bonding, as shown to be known in the art by Rowell. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. M.P.E.P. 2144.05(I). With regard to Claim 25, Visscher discloses that the back side of turf fibers are bonded to themselves via stitching. Paragraphs [0009] to [0012]. With regard to Claim 27, Visscher discloses that a secondary backing layer can be applied, paragraph [0011], but does not require or mandate such a configuration. With regard to Claim 28, Visscher does not require additional materials to the nonwoven backing and the tufted fibers. With regard to Claim 29, Visscher discloses using polypropylene as the low melting point polymer, paragraph [0022], which inherently possesses a melting point in the range of 160 to 170 degrees C. With regard to Claim 33, Visscher discloses providing tufts using a pile yarn that consists of only polyamide. Paragraph [0038].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY R PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am to 5 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, Marla D. 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.
JEREMY R. PIERCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/JEREMY R PIERCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights