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 .
Status of Application
Applicant’s amendments field on 05/06/2026 have been entered.
Claims 1-29 are currently pending.
Claims 1-17 have been withdrawn.
Claim 18 has been amended.
Claims 26-29 are new claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 18-23 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2018/0171644 A1) in view of Boucke (US 2024/0117640 A1), Dai (US 2019/0001543 A1) and Fang et al. (US 2015/0267025 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Zhang teaches a floor tile (Abstract) comprising a base carrier sheet, foam layer, (Claim 10 of Zhang), a support layer, an intermediate un-foamed layer which does not comprise a foaming agent, (Claim 1 and 10 of Zhang; Paragraph 0014) disposed on the base carrier sheet, and an upper decorative layer formed on the intermediate un-foamed layer (Claim 1 and 10 of Zhang; Fig. 1). Zhang teaches this intermediate un-foamed layer has a thickness of 0.1 to 10 mm. (Paragraph 0014), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05)
Zhang teaches embossing the laminate together (Paragraph 0043), does not specifically teach the upper decorative layer is embossed on its upper surface with a three-dimensional structure.
Boucke teaches a floor or wall panel (Abstract), where a decorative layer is embossed on its upper surface with three-dimensional structure of at least 0.4 microns (Paragraph 0007, 0020-0026, 0034; Fig. 3A-3D). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05) Boucke teaches this three-dimensional structure of this depth to the upper decorative layer improves the visuals of the decorative layer and panel. (Paragraph 0026). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply this texture to the upper decorative layer of Zhang to improve visuals of the decorative layer and panel.
Zhang and Boucke do not specifically teach base carrier foam layer and intermediate un-foamed layer are coextruded.
Dai teaches a decorative composite floor panel, where PVC un-foamed layer and a PVC foam layer of the floor panel are coextruded together. (Abstract; Fig. 1). Dai teaches co-extruding these layers together makes the layers bond more compactly, reduces delamination and reduces warpage due to environmental changes. (Abstract; Paragraph 0005, 0021). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to coextruded the layers of flooring material, including the foam and non-foam layers, of Zhang for these advantageous properties.
Zhang does not specifically teach the non-foamed intermediate layer forms a thermal screening layer for the foamed base sheet, where the base sheet has foaming agents present and the non-foamed sheet prevents any residual foaming agents in the base foam layer from reactivating when the three-dimensional structure is applied and avoids swelling of the base sheet.
Fang teaches including blowing/foaming agents into foamed PVC layers used into PVC floor tiles. (Abstract; Paragraph 0005-0007, 0017). Fang teaches adding multiple foaming/blowing agents improves the properties, such as strength, hardness and toughness of the foam and reduces decomposition under heat and light. (Paragraph 0005-0007, 0017). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use multiple foaming agents to form the foam in the base foamed PVC layer of Zhang to ensure better foam properties and floor tile properties.
As Zhang teaches no foaming agents in the non-foam layer and a thickness and composition that overlaps the claimed invention, Zhang inherently teaches the non-foamed support layer forms a thermal screening layer for the foamed base sheet and will prevent any residual foaming agents in the base foam sheet from being reactivated upon formation of three-dimensional structure onto the sheet and avoid swelling of the base sheet. As Zhang and Boucke teaches a thickness for the intermediate unfoamed layer and Boucke teaches an average depth of the three-dimensional structure, the thickness and depth will be selected relative to each other.
Regarding Claim 19-20, Zhang teaches the upper decorative layer is printed PVC, plastic, film. (Paragraph 0013).
Regarding Claim 21, Zhang teaches a top layer is applied on top of the upper decorative layer (Fig. 1, Item 1).
Zhang does not specifically teach the top layer is transparent and the structure is applied in the transparent top layer.
Boucke teaches the top layers on top of the decorative layer are transparent, as it allows the printed decorative pattern to be properly seen. (Paragraph 0005). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to make the top layer of Zhang transparent as taught by Boucke for visibility of the pattern.
Boucke also teaches having the structure applied to the transparent top layer (Paragraph 0007). Boucke teaches this textured top layer provides to protection of the decorative print layer and improves visuals of the panel. (Paragraph 0007, 0026). Thus, it would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art to apply the structure to the top layer of Zhang for improved protection and visuals.
Regarding Claim 22, Zhang teaches the top wear layer can be PVC. (Paragraph 0010).
Regarding Claim 23, Zhang teaches the top wear layer can be provided with a UV coating. (Paragraph 0010-0012). Zhang teaches UV varnish coatings can be used as the UV coating (Paragraph 0012); therefore, one with ordinary skill in the art would use the UV coatings taught in Zhang as Zhang teaches these UV varnishes are suitable.
Regarding Claim 25, Zhang does not teach the sheet material is a co-extruded sheet material that is sawn into planks and/ or is provided with coupling means on two opposite edges.
Dai teaches the advantage of co-extrusion PVC foam and non-foam PVC layers, as discussed above. Thus, it would have been obvious to coextruded layers of Zhang, as discussed above.
Fang teaches applying coupling means on two opposite edges to a flooring tile. (Paragraph 0070). Fang teaches these coupling means allow for seamless joining of adjacent flooring (Paragraph 0070). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply coupling means to two opposite edges of Zhang to ensure seamless coupling to other tiles.
Regarding Claims 26-29, Zhang teaches this intermediate un-foamed layer has a thickness of 0.1 to 10 mm. (Paragraph 0014) Boucke teaches a floor or wall panel (Abstract), where a decorative layer is embossed on its upper surface with three-dimensional structure of at least 0.4 microns (Paragraph 0007, 0020-0026, 0034; Fig. 3A-3D). These ranges overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05)
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Boucke, Dai and Fang, in further view of Vlassenrode (US 2019/0292793 A1).
Regarding Claim 24, Zhang teaches a bottom balance layer is applied to the underside of the sheet. (Abstract; Fig. 1; Paragraph 0023). Zhang does not specifically teach the balance layer is applied using glue, as Zhang teaches the balance layer is applied by lamination. (Paragraph 0023).
Vlassenrode teaches applying a bottom balance layer to the underside of a floor tile. (Paragraph 0047-0049). Vlassenrode teaches bottom balance layers can be applied through lamination or glue. (Paragraph 0049). Therefore, as Vlassenrode teaches applying a bottom balance layer through glue or lamination is functionally equivalent, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to select either method of gluing or lamination in applying the bottom balance layer to Zhang. (MPEP §2144.06, II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
A new grounds of rejection has been made in view of Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant argues that Zhang does not teach the case carrier layer. This argument is found unpersuasive, as Claim 10 recites a foam layer can be placed between the support layer, the intermediate un-foamed layer, and the balance layer. Thus, Zhang teaches the claimed structure of the panel.
Applicant argues that unfoamed layer of Zhang is a structural layer and not a foam screen layer recited in the claims. This argument is found unpersuasive, as the intended use of the layers does not change the structure of what Zhang teaches and what the layer can operate, as Zhang teaches the same thickness and material as the claimed limitation.
Applicant argues there is no motivation for using Dai to teach co-extrusion of the layers in Zhang. This argument is found unpersuasive, as Dai teaches and improvement by using a process of coextrusion with regard to foam and unfoamed layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would seek improvement by applying a known process for lamination to products of similar structure. (See KSR).
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached on (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights