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 .
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration due to Applicant’s elections.
Amendments to claims 1 and 9, filed on 5/6/2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (WO 97/19219) in view of Matsumoto (US 6,630,414 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Rogers teaches a linoleum floor-covering comprising a carrier (6) and a layer (4) of cured linoleum composition adherently attached at one side of the said carrier (6), wherein a second layer (11) of cured linoleum composition is adherently attached at the other side of the carrier (6) (Abstract and FIG. 2). Preferably the carrier is of a more or less open structure (through openings as claimed) and/or substantially porous material so as to facilitate penetration of the linoleum compositions through the carrier layer to assist in bonding thereof to the carrier and/or to each other, and to encapsulate more fully the carrier (page 5, lines 2-7). Various kinds of carrier may be used in the floor-coverings including woven and non-woven fabrics, of natural and synthetic material (page 4, lines 33-34).
Rogers does not explicitly disclose wherein the reinforcement layer is made of warp knitted material, or wherein a combined surface area of the through openings in the reinforcement layer is at least 50% of the total surface area of the reinforcement layer.
However, Matsumoto teaches a three-dimensional net made by warp knitting that has high shape retainability in three-dimensional cords defining three-dimensional mesh spaces, capability of suppressing direction dependency, superiority in structural stability and pressure resistance, capability of retaining a suitable degree of elasticity and formation of three-dimensional cords simply by imparting tension, high void content, and lightweight, which are suitable for various applications (Abstract). In FIGS. 1 through 5, the numerals 1 and 2 denote front and back mesh webs; 11 and 21 denote braids that form mesh openings 12 and 22 of the front and back sides, respectively (col. 10, lines 13-21). The numeral 3 denotes connecting yarns connecting the front and back mesh webs 1 and 2 while leaving a required spacing therebetween (col. 10, lines 13-21). In the three-dimensional net A of an embodiment, one of the front and back mesh webs 1 and 2, e.g., first mesh web 1 has mesh openings 12 larger than the mesh openings 22 of second mesh web 2 (col. 10, lines 22-36). Three-dimensional cords 4 may be formed such that the three-dimensional voids defined by inclined connecting yarns 3 form tunnels (col. 10, lines 53-57; and FIG. 3). (Also see cols. 11-12, lines 63-8). It is preferable to set the void content of the net in relation to the thickness of the yarns so that it is 80% or above, more preferably 90% or above, whereby lightweight can be attained (col. 22, lines 45-49). Depending on uses, the void content may be lower than said value (col. 22, lines 45-49).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used as the carrier in the floor covering of Roger a three-dimensional net made by warp knitting, wherein the void content of the net in relation to the thickness of the yarns is 80% or above, in order to provide the floor covering with a lightweight, structurally stable, reinforcing material that is suitable for use in mat and carpet materials, as suggested by Matsumoto (see cols. 24-25, lines 64-18, and the paragraphs cited above).
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto teaches a three-dimensional net made by warp knitting (Abstract). For instance, the three-dimensional net A is warp-knitted on a double Raschel machine having two rows of needle beds (col. 12, lines 25-28).
Regarding claims 3-5, Matsumoto teaches that, for use as various cushion materials or mat materials, the nets are used in general with dimensions such that the net thickness is 2-100 mm, the diameter of the larger mesh openings 12 is 5-100 mm, and the diameter of the smaller mesh openings is 1-50 mm (col. 22, lines 33-38). (Also see col. 10, lines 42-52, col. 6, lines 28-35, and FIGS. 1-5).
Regarding claim 8, the examiner notes that the three-dimensional net of Matsumoto would have different tensile strengths at least in the length or width direction relative to the thickness direction. It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have expected that the disclosed three-dimensional nets would have a different tensile strength in the length or width direction relative to the thickness direction because the structural arrangement of the yarns is different in the respective directions.
Regarding claim 9, Rogers teaches that the material may moreover be cut into dimensionally stable tiles (page 3, lines 18-19).
Regarding claim 10, Rogers teaches that preferably the carrier is of a more or less open structure and/or substantially porous material so as to facilitate penetration of the linoleum compositions through the carrier layer to assist in bonding thereof to the carrier and/or to each other, and to encapsulate more fully the carrier (page 5, lines 2-7).
Regarding claim 11, the examiner notes that Example 1 of Rogers discloses production of a linoleum floor-covering in which the carrier (the reinforcement layer) is free of adhesive material to adhere the first layer and the second layer to the carrier (see page 7, lines 3-32, and FIGS. 1-2).
Regarding claim 14, in an embodiment, Rogers teaches, in Example 1, a woven carrier that comprises a woven polyester mesh and has a weight of 25 g/m2 (page 7, lines 7-11).
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (WO 97/19219) in view of Matsumoto (US 6,630,414 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Behrens (WO 2016/057080 A1, wherein US 2016/0102428 A1 is relied upon as an equivalent reference).
Regarding claim 6, Rogers in view of Matsumoto remains as applied above.
Rogers in view of Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose wherein a maximum thickness of the reinforcement layer is in the range of 0.05 to 0.5 mm.
However, Rogers teaches that, in general the floor-coverings can have overall thickness of from 1 to 6mm, preferably from 1.5 to 4mm (page 4, lines 29-31). In addition, Behrens similarly teaches wherein, in some embodiments, a surface covering may be used as a linoleum floor covering and have a total thickness of about 1 mm to about 6 mm; alternatively from about 2 mm to about 4 mm [0014]). In some embodiments, the thickness of the first linoleum layer may be varied and ranges from about 0.1 mm to about 5 mm; alternatively about 0.2 mm to about 4 mm; alternatively from about 0.5 mm to about 3 mm; about 0.75 mm to about 2 mm; alternatively about 1 mm. ([0029]). In some embodiments, the second linoleum layer has a thickness of from about 0.5 mm to about 5 mm; alternatively from about 0.75 mm to about 3 mm; alternatively from about 1 mm to about 1.5 mm; alternatively from about 1.1 mm to about 1.4 mm ([0049]). Thus, as calculated by the examiner, the thickness of the carrier (the reinforcement layer) would overlap with the claimed range (e.g., 2.5 - [1 +1.25] = 0.25 mm, or 1 - [0.1 + 0.5] = 0.4 mm).
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 carrier (the reinforcement layer) with a thickness of less than 1 mm, such as 0.4 mm, in order to obtain linoleum floor coverings with suitable linoleum layer and overall layer thicknesses, as suggested by Behrens (see the paragraphs cited above).
Regarding claim 13, Behrens teaches a second linoleum composition (a third layer) adjacent to a first linoleum composition (a first or second layer) ([0005]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (WO 97/19219) in view of Matsumoto (US 6,630,414 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Zuckerman et al. (US Patent No. 3,937,861).
Regarding claim 7, Rogers in view of Matsumoto remains as applied above.
Rogers in view of Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the mass percentage of the reinforcement layer is maximally 3% of the total weight of the linoleum floor covering.
However, Zuckerman teaches a multilayer floor covering which is suitable for use as a playing surface of an athletic facility (Abstract). The floor covering comprises a composite needlepunched material in which a fiber batt bottom layer is needled into a support layer so that a portion of the fiber batt protrudes through the top of the support layer, a layer of polyurethane elastomer adhered to the composite needlepunched material and a top wear coating of polyurethane adhered to the layer of urethane elastomer (Abstract). The support layer is preferably a woven or knitted fabric but can also be a nonwoven fabric or a polymeric film (col. 2 lines 8-17). The support layer preferably has a weight of about 2 to 5 ounces per square yard (same section). Thus, the total weight of the composite of the fiber batt plus the support layer is preferably between about 12 and 85 ounces per square yard (same section). The floor covering has a total thickness of about 7/64 to 3/4 of an inch, weights about 60 to 450 ounces/square yard…. (col. 5 lines 37-44). As calculated by the examiner, the weight of the disclosed knitted support layer would be within the claimed range (e.g., 2 osy / 100 osy = 2%).
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 knitted carrier with a weight of about 2 to 5 ounces per square yard within a floor covering having an overall weight in a range of about 60 to 450 ounces/square yard in order to obtain a floor covering product in which the knitted carrier can reasonably be expected to function as a support layer that provides dimensional stability to the floor covering product, as suggested by the disclosure of Zuckerman (col. 2 lines 8-17; also see Abstract and col. 5 lines 37-44). As calculated by the examiner, the weight of the disclosed knitted support layer would be within the claimed range (e.g., 2 osy / 100 osy = 2%).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (WO 97/19219) in view of Matsumoto (US 6,630,414 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Dekok (EP-74681-B2, see attachment).
Regarding claim 8, Rogers in view of Matsumoto remains as applied above, teaching the claimed limitations.
In addition, Dekok teaches a floor covering, comprising a fabric substrate and an upper layer of a wear-proof material with an elastomeric behaviour adhered thereon, the fabric threads (1) directed in the transversal direction of the web having a large elasticity module, and the fabric threads (2) in the longitudinal direction of the web having a sufficient tensile strength for withstanding the longitudinal forces occurring during manufacturing, and having, in particular, a smaller elasticity module than the transversal threads (Abstract). During calendering, i.e. providing the upper layer material on the substrate between rollers, very substantial tensile forces may be exerted, so that threads with a high tensile strength are required (page 3 lines 30-33).
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 reinforcement layer with a higher tensile strength in the longitudinal direction than in the transversal direction in order to ensure that the web has a sufficient tensile strength for withstanding the longitudinal forces occurring during manufacturing (e.g., during calendering) while also having appropriate elastic properties in the transversal direction, as suggested by Dekok (Abstract and page 3 lines 24-33).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogers (WO 97/19219) in view of Matsumoto (US 6,630,414 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Miyazono et al. (US 2009/0182070 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Rogers in view of Matsumoto remains as applied above.
Rogers in view of Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose wherein a hydrophobicity of the reinforcement layer is the same or larger than a hydrophobicity of the first and second layer.
However, Miyazono teaches polyester fibers having a conductivity excellent in stability when humidity fluctuates, and polyester textile products comprising the polyester fibers such as woven fabrics and knit fabrics and polyester textile products made by using the polyester fibers such as brushes ([0002]). The polyester fibers can be used, for example, for clothing use such as dustproof clothes, or for non-clothing use such as interior materials such as vehicle interior materials or wall materials for buildings, carpets or floor materials, and to these fibrous products, a desirable high conductivity can be given ([0014] and [0144]). Because the resin is polyester, it has almost no water absorption or moisture absorption property, and as a result, because the humidity dependency of the conductivity is small, the conductivity is very stable ([0014]).
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 carrier (the reinforcement layer) with a hydrophobicity that is at least the same as a hydrophobicity of the linoleum layer (the first and second layer) in order to provide stable properties, such as conductivity (for removal of static electricity) and strength, in a flooring product that is used inside or outside and is exposed to humidity ([0014] and [0043]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 on 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 /MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights