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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 2/12/2026 has been considered and entered into the record. Independent claim 1 has been amended to require that he first reinforcing layer is an outermost layer. Claims 13–22 have been cancelled. New claims 23–25 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 2/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1–5 and 7–12 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action
Claims 1–5, 7–12 and 23–25 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. Claim 1 now recites “the reinforcing layer is an outermost layer.” The claim is indefinite as it is unclear as to what the first reinforcing layer is an outermost layer. For examination purposes, the Examiner presumes that the first reinforcing layer is an outermost layer of the floor finishing material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–9, 11, and 23–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuzuka (JP 2013-189607) in view of Jaudoin (US 2019/0263307 A1).
Mitsuzuka teaches the formation of a flooring material comprising a low-smoke-emitting polyvinyl chloride sheet, wherein the sheet includes a surface layer, a base layer, and a reinforcing layer as the outermost layer. Mitsuzuka Abstract, Description of Embodiments. Additionally, a reinforcing layer may be a woven glass fiber layer included between the base layer and surface layer. Id. The base material layer and the surface layer may comprise polyvinyl chloride-based resin and a polyester-based plasticizer. Id. Abstract, Description of Embodiments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included a reinforcing layer underneath the base layer as the outermost layer and between the base layer and the surface layer motivated by the desire to further reinforce the flooring material.
Mitsuzuka fails to teach that the reinforcing layer located under the base layer is impregnated with a claimed synthetic resin.
Jaudoin teaches a multilayer structure for the production of a floor covering comprising an upper wear layer and multiple woven reinforcement layers adhered together using adhesive. Jaudoin abstract, ¶¶ 27, 54. The upper wear layer may be embossed. Id. ¶ 35. A lower of two woven reinforcement layers is impregnated with a thermosetting polymer, such as epoxy, polysulfone, phenolic, and vinyl ester resins, to provide greater rigidity to the structure and limit telegraphing phenomena. Id. ¶¶ 20, 27.
The ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to impregnate the lower reinforcing layer of Mitsuzuka with epoxy, polysulfone, and vinyl ester resins to add further rigidity to the structure and limit telegraphing. Additionally, it would have been obvious to emboss the surface layer of Mitsuzuka motivated by the desire to aesthetically alter the flooring material.
Although Mitsuzuka and Jaudoin do not explicitly teach the claimed feature of a bending rigidity of 50 MPa or more in accordance with JIS K7106 and a combustion toxic gas test of 150 or less in accordance with ASTM E662, it is reasonable to presume that said properties are inherent to the combined prior art. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. polyvinyl-based floor finishing material with claimed structure). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed bending rigidity and combustion levels would obviously have been present one the Mitsuzuka and Jaudoin product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947 (CCPA 1975).
Claim 24 is rejected as a polyvinyl chloride-based resin intermediate base layer may be laminated underneath the surface layer 1. Mitsuzuka Description of Embodiments.
Jaudouin teaches that the upper wear layer (i.e., surface layer) is preferably transparent so a decoration printed on the backside of the wear layer can be seen. Jaudoin ¶¶ 22–24. Claim 25 is rejected because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the surface layer of Mitsuzuka transparent and printed a decoration on the surface layer’s backside so that the decoration would be visible through the surface layer thereby making the flooring more aesthetically appealing.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuzuka and Jaudoin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guyot (US 2017/0356130 A1).
Mitsuzuka and Jaudoin fail to teach a basis weight for the flooring material or the impregnation levels of the first reinforcing layer of the flooring material.
Guyot teaches a floor covering material comprising one or more reinforced thermoplastic layers, textile layers, and a surface layer. Guyot abstract. In order, the floor covering may comprise a coating layer 5, a textile layer 4, a backing layer 3, a substrate layer 2, and a surface layer 1. Id. ¶ 9, Fig. 1. Substrate layer 2 may comprise a woven or nonwoven glass fabric impregnated with polymeric resin. Id. ¶ 58.
In the Guyot floor covering, the surface layer 1 has a basis weight of 160–2,000 gsm (wear + decorative layers), substrate layer 2 430–920 gsm (nonwoven glass fabric and impregnation), backing layer 3 100–750 gsm, textile 4 and coating 5 layers 150–3,500 gsm. Guyot ¶¶ 46, 51, 56, 58, 59, 64, 73, 82, 83. As such, the floor covering material of Guyot has a basis weight ranging of from 840–7,170 gsm.
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have looked to Guyot for guidance as to suitable basis weights for flooring material in order to successfully practice the invention of Mitsuzuka.
Guyot further teaches that the coating layer 5 that impregnates textile layer 4 may have a basis weight as low as 100 gsm. Guyot ¶ 82. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the coating layer with a basis weight as low as 60 gsm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuzuka and Jaudoin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aoki (JP 2014117850 A).
Mitsuzuka and Jaudoin fail to teach the tex of a yarn used for the woven fabric and its weaving density.
Aoki teaches the use of decorative sheet that may be used as a part of flooring, wherein the sheet comprises woven glass fiber fabric and polyvinyl chloride resin. Aoki abstract, background, examples. The woven glass fiber fabric may comprise yarn of a tex ranging from 2.8 to 135 tex and a weaving density of 20 to 75 yarns per 25 mm. Id. Best Mode. The woven glass has textural irregularities associated with its weave texture and as such should be impregnated with a thermosetting polymer at levels of 50 g/m2 in order to create a smooth planar surface. Id. abstract, background.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have looked to Aoki for guidance as to suitable yarn tex and weaving density in selecting woven glass fiber fabric for use in flooring in order to successfully practice the invention of Mitsuzuka.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786