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 .
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 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.
Claim(s) 62-76, 80 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Giel et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0002932 in view of DE 102006020135A1, Drevet, NL 2019107 and Courey et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0298622.
Van Giel discloses a panel having interlocking side edges. See paragraph 0020. The panel can comprise a support layer comprising one or more polymers. The support layer does not include pores or openings and can have a water absorption of zero, which is equated with being water proof. See paragraph 0016. The polymers can be thermoset polymers. See paragraph 0028. The thermoset polymers can include phenol formaldehyde resins and epoxy resins. See paragraph 0030. With regard to the formaldehyde to phenol ratio, it would have been obvious to have selected a suitable ratio to form a resin having the desired properties. The polymers can be used to form a substrate which includes filler materials. Suitable filler materials include gypsum, glass and wood. See paragraph 0036. The filler material can be in the form of fibers or particles. The fillers can be cement dust, clay, mineral fillers, wood flour, as well as natural fibers such as flax, hemp, jute, bamboo, and other cellulosic fibers. See paragraphs 0037-0038. Since the same types of natural fibers and particles are used, it is reasonable to expect that they would have amounts of cellulose, cellulose crystallinity and amount of lignin as claimed, in claims 69-71. The filler can be present in amounts of at least about 50%. See paragraph 0039. The support layer can comprise a glass fiber fabric. See paragraph 0081. The fillers can be present in amounts of 15-75 wt%. See paragraph 0021. Since the fillers are dispersed in the thermoset layer, they would be encapsulated. The support layer can be a single layer. The panel can have any shape and therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected a substantially flat surface in order to provide floor and/or wall coverings which had a flat surface. The structure can include coupling mechanisms such as tongue and groove systems. See paragraph 0020.
The structure can include a top layer and a decorative layer, but Van Giel differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose that the top layer is stone, ceramic, granite, or marble and does not disclose that the binder includes gypsum, does not disclose the density or thickness of the support panel, or the use of an adhesive to connect the core layer to the top layer.
However, DE ‘135 discloses a floor covering panel having a core or support layer and an upper layer of natural or artificial stone of glass. See abstract. Suitable materials include granite, marble, slate, cement, concrete, ceramics, tiles, fired clay materials and or epoxy quartz compounds. See first three lines of page 3 of the attached machine translation. The core or support material has a density of 1100-1700 kg/m3. See second paragraphs on page 4. The core includes gypsum. The panels can include interlocking systems to fasten the panels together. The support layer can have a thickness of 4-12 mm. See page 4, lines 17-20. The top layer can be a waterproof layer. See page 4, lines 22-23. The top layer can be bonded to the support layer via an adhesive. See page 5, lines 1-2. Since hot-melt adhesives are well known types of adhesives, it would have been obvious to have selected a hot-melt adhesive to bond the top layer and the support layer together.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the particularly claimed types of top layer and to have adhesively bonded the layers together, to have provided gypsum in the core layer and selected a density and thickness as taught by DE ‘135, in view of teaching of DE ‘135 that these elements were recognized in the art as suitable for forming panels having a top layer and a support layer which are designed to be interlocked at the edges.
Van Giel differs from the claimed invention because it does not disclose that the support layer is larger than the top layer.
However, Drevet discloses a decorative panel comprising a support layer and a top layer as set forth above. Drevet shows in figure 2 that an upper surface of the notched area 8 is exposed and extends past the top layer. The portion is substantially planar and the support layer is substantially flat because the substantial portion of the support layer is flat.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have formed the structure of Van Giel so that the support layer was larger and exposed relative to the decorative layer in order to allow for the presence of the connecting elements to connect panels beneath the decorative layer as shown by Drevet.
Van Giel does not teach that when a plurality of panels are joined that there is an exposed portion of the support layer and a space between adjacent decorative layers.
However, Courey teaches a panel comprising a decorative top layer and a core support layer wherein the decorative top layer is smaller than the core support layer such that a portion of the core support layer is exposed to form an imitation grout line. See entire document, especially claims 1 and 2 of Courey.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have formed the panels of Van Giel so that a portion of the support layer was exposed in order to provide a decorative appearance of the panels being joined together by a grout line. It further would have been obvious to have selected the exact spacing which would be between the decorative layers in view of the appearance and scale of the final product including the plurality of panels joined to form the panel system.
Claim(s) 79 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Giel in view of Drevet , DE ‘135 and Courey as applied to claims above, and further in view of Miller, U.S. Patent No. 7,442,423.
Van Giel in view of Drevet and DE ‘135 do not clearly teach employing a hot melt adhesive to bond a surface layer to a support layer.
However, Miller teaches employing hot glue which is the same as hot melt adhesive to bond a surface layer of ceramic, glass or stone to a substrate layer. See col. 7, lines 39-42.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have employed a hot glue/hot melt adhesive to bond the layers.
Claim(s) 77, 78, 82, 83 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Giel in view of Drevet , DE ‘135 and Courey as applied to claims above, and further in view of Thiers et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0250493.
Van Giel in view of Drevet and DE’135 teach that the panels can include coupling mechanisms but fail to clearly teach coupling mechanisms wherein a coupling mechanism which functions to enable interlocking in a vertical direction as well as a coupling mechanism which functions to allow for interlocking by a turning movement are both present on opposite sides of the panel.
However, Thiers teaches providing such coupling mechanisms on a floor covering panel. See claim 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have employed the coupling mechanisms of Thiers as coupling mechanisms for the structure of Van Giel in order to provide suitable means for combining the panels.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to Van Giel, Applicant argues that there is no evidence to show that the material of Van Giel has no pores or openings. However, Van Giel does not disclose that the layer has any pores or openings. Additionally, Van Giel employs the same materials in the same amounts to form the support layer which would lead to the reasonable expectation that the material of Van Giel would have the same properties as the claimed substrate layer. Additionally, the water absorption of zero is equated with being waterproof. See paragraph 0016.
With regard to the proportions of formaldehyde and phenol, since the two components are disclosed as being present in the composition, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to select the amounts of each component in order to provide a composition having the desired properties.
With regard to the inclusion of a mineral binder comprising gypsum, Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to modify Van Giel to include gypsum because Van Giel employs thermoplastic or thermoset resins as the binder. However, DE ‘135 teaches employing gypsum as a binder in similar decorative panels and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in employing gypsum as an alternative known binder material in similar systems.
With regard to the particularly claimed coupling mechanisms, Applicant argues that the discussion of a turning movement is only in reference to the uncoupling of the panels. However, the coupling and uncoupling movements would necessarily be mirrors of each other and include both vertical and turning movements to couple and uncouple. Further, Applicant argues that the rejection relies on impermissible hindsight because Van Giel already teaches a coupling mechanism. However, the fact that Van Giel already teaches one coupling mechanism does not mean that additional known coupling mechanisms could not have been predictably substituted to produce the predictable result of a panel which can be coupled and uncoupled in different ways, depending on where the panels would be placed.
With regard to Applicant changing the claims to recite more than one panel and the exposure of the support layer when the panels are joined a new rejection is set forth above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gentsch et al, U.S. Patent No. 5,052,160 teaches a panel where the underlying support material is exposed between adjacent decorative portions in order to simulate grout but does not teach a plurality of individual panels as claimed.
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 ELIZABETH M IMANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1475. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 7AM-7:30; Thursday 10AM -2 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 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.
/ELIZABETH M IMANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights