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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 21 – 30 and 35 – 41, 43 – 56, 61 – 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson, et al. (US 2018/0370278 A1) in view of Schulte (US 2017/0120564 A1).
With respect to claim 21, Persson, et al. teach a method to manufacture a building panel (paragraph 0003), comprising: joining a first material (substrate, item 1 – figure 1; paragraph 0168) and a second material (item 4 – figure 1; paragraph 0170) to form a semi-finished panel (sub-layer 4 is deposited or formed on substrate 1 [see figure 1]) and wherein the second material forms a second layer of the semi-finished panel (figure 2; examiner notes that a pre-pressing step may be included before adhering a surface layer onto the sublayer [see paragraph 0061]), wherein said first material comprising a pre-fabricated substrate which may be a wood-fiber based board, a mineral composite or thermoplastic composite, wood-plastic composite or ceramic board and may optionally contain fillers (paragraph 0168).
In addition, the reference teaches the application of a third layer (item 6 – figure 1) on the second layer of the semi-finished panel (figure 1), applying heat and pressure to the third layer to join the third layer to the semi-finished panel to form said building panel (paragraph 0248), wherein after applying the heat and pressure, the first layer forms a core of the building panel and the third layer form a surface layer of the building panel and wherein when applying heat and pressure, the second layer forms a thermally-insulating layer between the first layer and the applied heat and pressure to protect the first layer from heat damage (paragraph 0248).
Persson, et al. do not specifically teach that the first material comprises calcium carbonate combined specifically with a thermoplastic material, thermoset material, a mineral based- material or combination thereof. In addition, Persson, et al. do not teach that the second layer has a conductivity of less than 1 W/mK.
With respect to the first material of the substrate, Persson, et al. do teach that the substrate may be comprises of MDF, wood-based fiber, HDF, particleboard, thermoplastic material, mineral board with fillers, et al. (paragraph 0168). Persson, et al. also appreciate that the layer(s) of the panel may include typical fillers such as glass fiber, barium sulphate, calcium carbonate, etc. – all of which are non-absorbing fillers (paragraph 0170).
In addition, Schulte teaches a floor or wall panel comprised of multiple layers. The core or base layer, like that of Persson, et al. may be comprised of wood material, MDF, HDF, etc. (paragraph 0011). However, it may also be comprised of fiber cement compositions such as calcium carbonate (paragraph 0012).
Thus, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the application was filed to include calcium carbonate in the substrate composition combined with a thermoplastic, thermoset or mineral-based material as such materials/compositions are typical of a substrate in floor panels as taught by Schulte.
With respect to the thermal conductivity of the second layer, the primary reference of Persson, et al. teach that the sub-layer may be comprised of thermoset(s) and/or fillers included therein (paragraph 0170). The examiner notes that the materials of the sub-layer are equivalent that that identified in applicant’s specification (see page 16) and thus, the thermal conductivity of the second layer of Persson, et al. would be expected to be the same as it is a property of the composition used.
With respect to claims 22 – 23, Persson, et al. in view of Schulte render obvious the ranges as recited. Specifically, Schulte teaches the carrier plate or substrate to be at least 50 – 90% wood fiber and a plastic matrix of polypropylene (paragraph 0011). Given 50 – 90% wood fiber, the thermoplastic composition would range from 10% - 50% which renders obvious the thermoplastic range(s) as recited.
With respect to claims 24 – 25, Persson, et al. in view of Schulte render obvious the ranges as recited. Persson, et al. teach that the substrate may be comprised of wood-based fiber but also may include filler(s) and be comprised of other materials (paragraph 0168). Similarly, Schulte teaches that the carrier plate (or substrate) for the panel may be made of wood-based fiber or plastics or a combination and may optionally include fillers, inorganic and/or mineral-based.
While the combination of Persson, et al. and Schulte are silent to the specific ranges, the examiner contends it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to produce a substrate with the materials and/or fillers as recited in order to produce a core for the floor panel with waterproof properties, low conductivity and/or flame resistance (Schulte, paragraph 0011).
With respect to claim 26 – 30, Persson, et al. teach that the second layer (or sublayer) comprises a thermoset material and can include fillers (paragraph 0107 – 0108). The filler may be inorganic (paragraph 0108); the filler may be calcium carbonate (paragraph 0108). While Persson, et al. do not specifically teach the amount of calcium carbonate, the range as recited is rendered obvious as the reference teaches that fillers like calcium carbonate act to reinforce the layer (paragraph 0108). Thus, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include 1 – 40wt% calcium carbonate for the purpose of reinforcing the second layer.
With respect to claim 35 – 37, Persson, et al. in view of Schulte render obvious the range of filler and the thermal conductivity as recited.
With respect to the organic filler, Persson, et al. teach that filler may be included in the sub-layer, to include inorganic, organic or pigment-type fillers, all of which may be non-absorbing (paragraph 0061). While Persson, et al. may not teach the specific range, the amount of filler can be adjusted and thus optimizable based on the properties of the layer desired.
With respect to the thermal conductivity, because the second layer (or sub-layer) of Persson, et al. can include the same type of composition and fillers as that of the instant application, the thermal conductivity would be expected.
With respect to claim 38, Persson, et al. in view of Schulte render obvious the second layer thickness as recited. Per Schulte, veneers for cover layers of floor panels start at about 0.4 mm (paragraph 0004).
With respect to claim 39 – 40, Persson, et al. in view of Schulte render obvious the presence of a fourth layer. Schulte teaches that a balancing layer may be deposited onto the rear of the substrate or carrier plate (paragraph 0030, 0034). This fourth layer is a balancing layer which compensates for tensions in the multilayer panel. Thus, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious at the time the application was filed to include the fourth layer on the surface of the first material or substrate of Persson, et al. for the purpose of providing further rigidity to the substrate, protecting the first layer and compensating for tensions in the panel as taught by Schulte.
With respect to claim 41, Persson, et al. and Schulte render obvious a panel (see Persson, et al., paragraph 0007).
With respect to claim 43, because Persson, et al. teach equivalent materials in the second layer as that recited in the instant specification, the thermal conductivity is an expected property of the second layer.
With respect to claim 44 – 46, Persson, et al. teach the pressure as claimed (paragraph 0248) and the manufacture of a floor panel (paragraph 0007).
With respect to claim 47, Persson, et al. teach a floor panel comprising: a core (substrate, item 1 – figure 1); and a thermally insulating layer (item 4 – figure 1; paragraph 0248); and a surface layer (item 6 – figure 1); wherein the floor panel is formed by pressing, under heat and pressure, the surface layer to a semi-finished panel comprising the core and the thermally insulating layer (paragraph 0248); wherein the core comprises a pre-fabricated substrate which may be a wood-fiber based board, a mineral composite or thermoplastic composite, wood-plastic composite or ceramic board and may optionally contain fillers (paragraph 0168); wherein the thermally-insulating layer is arranged between the core and the surface layer (figure 1 and 2; note that sublayer 4 is between the surface layer 6 and substrate 1).
Persson, et al. do not specifically teach that the core comprises calcium carbonate combined specifically with a thermoplastic material, thermoset material, a mineral based- material or combination thereof. In addition, Persson, et al. do not teach that the thermally insulating layer has a conductivity of less than 1 W/mK.
With respect to the core material, Persson, et al. do teach that the substrate may be comprises of MDF, wood-based fiber, HDF, particleboard, thermoplastic material, mineral board with fillers, et al. (paragraph 0168). Persson, et al. also appreciate that the layer(s) of the panel may include typical fillers such as glass fiber, barium sulphate, calcium carbonate, etc. – all of which are non-absorbing fillers (paragraph 0170).
In addition, Schulte teaches a floor or wall panel comprised of multiple layers. The core or base layer, like that of Persson, et al. may be comprised of wood material, MDF, HDF, etc. (paragraph 0011). However, it may also be comprised of fiber cement compositions such as calcium carbonate (paragraph 0012).
Thus, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the application was filed to include calcium carbonate in the substrate composition combined with a thermoplastic, thermoset or mineral-based material as such materials/compositions are typical of a substrate in floor panels as taught by Schulte.
With respect to the thermal conductivity of the insulating layer, the primary reference of Persson, et al. teach that the sub-layer may be comprised of thermoset(s) and/or fillers included therein (paragraph 0170). The examiner notes that the materials of the sub-layer are equivalent that that identified in applicant’s specification (see page 16) and thus, the thermal conductivity would be expected to be the same as it is a property of the composition used.
With respect to claims 48 – 51, with respect to the core materials, Persson, et al. in view of Schulte render obvious the ranges as recited. Persson, et al. teach that the substrate may be comprised of wood-based fiber but also may include filler(s) and be comprised of other materials (paragraph 0168). Similarly, Schulte teaches that the carrier plate (or substrate) for the panel may be made of wood-based fiber or plastics or a combination and may optionally include fillers, inorganic and/or mineral-based.
While the combination of Persson, et al. and Schulte are silent to the specific ranges, the examiner contends it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to produce a core (substrate) with the materials and/or fillers as recited in order to produce a core for the floor panel with waterproof properties, low conductivity and/or flame resistance (Schulte, paragraph 0011).
With respect to claims 52 – 56, Persson, et al. teach that the second layer (or sublayer) comprises a thermoset material and can include fillers (paragraph 0107 – 0108). The filler may be inorganic (paragraph 0108); the filler may be calcium carbonate (paragraph 0108). While Persson, et al. do not specifically teach the amount of calcium carbonate, the range as recited is rendered obvious as the reference teaches that fillers like calcium carbonate act to reinforce the layer (paragraph 0108). Thus, the examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include 1 – 40wt% calcium carbonate for the purpose of reinforcing the thermally-insulating layer.
With respect to claims 61 – 64, Persson, et al. in view of Schulte render obvious the range of filler and the thermal conductivity as recited.
With respect to the organic filler, Persson, et al. teach that filler may be included in the sub-layer, to include inorganic, organic or pigment-type fillers, all of which may be non-absorbing (paragraph 0061). While Persson, et al. may not teach the specific range, the amount of filler can be adjusted and thus optimizable based on the properties of the layer desired.
With respect to the thermal conductivity, because the thermally-insulating (or sub-layer) of Persson, et al. can include the same type of composition and fillers as that of the instant application, the thermal conductivity would be expected.
With respect to claim 65, Persson, et al. in view of Schulte render obvious the thermally-insulating thickness as recited. Per Schulte, veneers for cover layers of floor panels start at about 0.4 mm (paragraph 0004).
With respect to claim 66, Persson, et al. teach the pressure as claimed (paragraph 0248).
With respect to claim 67, Persson, et al. teach that the surface layer (sheet 6) comprises a thermoset material (paragraph 0141 – 0146).
Claim(s) 31 – 34 and 57 – 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Persson, et al. in view of Schulte as applied to claims 21 and 47 and their dependent claims respectively as noted above, and further in view of Kwak (US 2006/0155004 A1).
With respect to claims 31 – 34, Persson, et al. and Schulte teach and/or render obvious the limitations above and both appreciate the presence of fillers in the second layer; however, both fail to teach the presence of gas-containing elements as the filler wherein the elements are glass bubbles; wherein said second layer comprises 1-25wt% gas-containing elements or wherein the second layer comprises a filler with a combination of calcium carbonate and gas containing elements.
Kwak teaches a resin mortar composition for a floor (see abstract). The composition can include glass beads (gas-containing elements) (paragraph 0034). The use of glass beads is similar to using other fillers such as silica. In addition, the glass beads have higher hardness, surface durability and provide flame retarding properties (paragraph 0035). The glass beads may be added in an amount of 10 – 200parts by weight which overlaps the wt percent claimed.
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the second layer of Persson, et al. with the calcium carbonate filler of Schulte, further modified to include glass beads as an additional filler for the purpose of providing desirable properties such as durability, higher hardness and flame retardance per the teachings of Kwak.
With respect to claims 57 – 60, Persson, et al. and Schulte teach and/or render obvious the limitations above and both appreciate the presence of fillers in the thermally-insulating layer; however, both fail to teach the presence of gas-containing elements as the filler wherein the elements are glass bubbles; wherein said second layer comprises 1-25wt% gas-containing elements or wherein the second layer comprises a filler with a combination of calcium carbonate and gas containing elements.
Kwak teaches a resin mortar composition for a floor (see abstract). The composition can include glass beads (gas-containing elements) (paragraph 0034). The use of glass beads is similar to using other fillers such as silica. In addition, the glass beads have higher hardness, surface durability and provide flame retarding properties (paragraph 0035). The glass beads may be added in an amount of 10 – 200parts by weight which overlaps the wt. percent claimed.
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the thermally-insulating layer of Persson, et al. with the calcium carbonate filler of Schulte, further modified to include glass beads as an additional filler for the purpose of providing desirable properties such as durability, higher hardness and flame retardance per the teachings of Kwak.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2 – 3, filed November 17, 2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 – 43 under 35 USC 103a 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 in view of Persson, et al., Schulte and Kwak. The examiner notes that claims 1 – 20 and 42 have been canceled.
With respect to amended claim 21 and new claim 47, applicant argues that the prior cited reference(s) do not teach or render obvious the formation of a semi-finished panel formed from a first material and a second material which become first and second layers, respectively. In addition, applicant argues that the prior cited reference(s) do not teach the newly-recited features of applying heat and pressure, wherein when applying such heat and pressure, the second layer forms a thermally-insulating layer protecting the first layer or core.
Examiner concurs and thus, based upon the newly-amended claim(s) and/or new claim(s), has cited the primary reference of Persson, et al. Persson, et al. teach a floor panel comprised of a first layer (substrate) and a second layer (sub-layer) which is semi-finished. An additional third layer or surface layer (sheet 6) is then deposited onto the sub-layer. The three-layer panel is then pressed and heated using the same temperature range and pressure range as that of applicant to form a floor panel or wall panel. In addition, Persson, et al. specifically teach that the laminate, upon pressing, causes the thermosetting binder in the sub-layer to permeate the surface layer. This reduces flow of the thermosetting binder into the substrate, thereby protecting it (paragraph 0130 and 0248). Any thermosetting binder applied onto the substrate surface is intended to flow into the sheet and impregnate it or diffuse into it, thereby bonding the surface layer to the substrate. Persson, et al. also teach that flow of the thermosetting binder from the sub-layer or thermally-insulating layer is controlled into the sheet, which also improves print quality of the surface layer (paragraph 0071).
Thus, the examiner has rejected claims 21 – 67 over the reference(s) of Persson, et al. as modified by Schulte, which teaches calcium carbonate filler and Kwak, which is cited for its teachings for glass bead fillers and the action is made final.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA VERONICA EWALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8519. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri ~9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-270-7769. 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.
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783