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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/09/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/09/2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(a) because it lacks the appropriate size fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(v). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 15, line 1, the preamble recites “A flooring article comprising an at least one layer of a cellulose…”, however, the word “an” should be removed as it is redundant with the “at least one” phrasing.
Regarding claim 15, the newly added limitation in lines 10 “wherein the core layer comprises the cellulose ester-based composition” is redundant with the phase “wherein the at least one layer comprises the core layer” in claim 9. Lines 1-5 of claim 15 define the “at least one layer” as being comprised of cellulose ester-based composition comprising a cellulose ester, therefore, the phrase in line 9 stating “wherein the at least one layer comprises the core layer” makes it clear that the core layer is comprised of the “at least one layer of a cellulose ester-based composition.
Regarding claim 17, in lines 1-2, the phrase “wherein said flooring article is a multilayer resilient flooring article” is redundant with line 6 of claim 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is 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.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase in lines 5-6 reciting “and wherein the at least one layer comprises the core layer and the print layer” is indefinite. Claim 15 recites in line 9 stating “wherein the at least one layer comprises the core layer”, previously establishing that the core layer is one of the “at least one layers. Lines 5-6 of claim 17 repeats that the core layer is one of the “at least one layer” and also recites that the print layer is one of the “at least one layers”, which is indefinite as the core layer has already been established as being one of the “at least one layers”. Should the claim be amended to recite “wherein the at least one layers further comprise the print layer”, this rejection would be overcome.
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 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bastin et al. (US 2022/0195739) in view of Compton et al. (US 2019/0256674).
Regarding claim 15, Bastin et al. teaches a multilayer scruff resistant surface covering, such as a floor or wall covering (flooring article) comprising in order, an additional polymer layer (E), a substrate (A), a scruff resistant polymer (B; core layer) and a protective top layer (D; wear layer) ([0074-0236]). The scruff resistant polymer (B; core layer) is comprised of a cellulose ester polymer (i) and vinylacetal copolymers ([0038-0047, 0086-0091, 0110-0112]). Bastin et al. further teaches that the cellulose ester polymer is present at an amount 93.5% by weight within layer B, resulting in the vinylacetal copolymers comprising up to 6.5 % by weight ([0086-0091]), which overlaps the claimed range of 5% by weight to 49% by weight recited by the claim. Bastin et al. further teaches that layer B further comprises a plasticizer in amount of 5-40 parts by weight, a lubricant (roll release agent) in an amount of up to 10 parts by weight ([0141-0148, 0156-0159]), overlapping the claimed ranges recited by claim 15.
The phrase “and optionally a print layer between the core layer and the wear layer” is optional, and therefore not a required feature of the claim.
Bastin et al. teaches that the substrate is comprised of one or more polymers, has a thickness of 0.5-15mm (59.1-236.2mil) and is preferably comprised of a woven or non-woven mesh or fabric or glass fiber mat ([0057, 0080-0085]). While not expressly stated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the substrate taught by Bastin et al. would have a haze value of 10% or more as the materials are not inherently transparent.
Bastin et al. does not expressly teach that the scruff resistant polymer (B; core layer) comprises a processing aid in the claimed amount of 0.5-6wt.%. Compton et al. is directed to cellulose ester compositions used for flooring, wherein the cellulose ester composition is comprised of a cellulose ester, a plasticizer in an amount of 0-40 wt.% based on the total weight of the composition, a roll release agent in an amount of 0.1-2.0 wt.% based on a total weight of the composition, a processing aid in an amount of 0-6wt.% based on the total weight of the composition ([0004, 0024]). Compton et al. teaches that a number of processing aids are known in the art to help improve texture and fusion of the melt, improve melt strength, reduce melting time and help to distribute the polymer thereby reducing overall process time ([0053-0055]). The weight percentage range of the processing aid taught in Compton et al. is the same as the instant claims.
As both Bastin et al. and Compton et al. teach flooring compositions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the scruff resistant polymer (B; core layer) composition to include a processing aid in an amount of 0-6 wt.% as taught by Compton et al. to improve texture, melt strength and reduce overall processing time of the composition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 17 requires all the limitations of claim 15, and additionally, teaches that the flooring article comprises a print layer having the same cellulose ester based composition as required for the core layer. None of the cited references teach the combination of features required by the combination of claims 17 and 15, specifically, a print layer comprising the cellulose ester based composition required by claims 17 as it depends from claim 15.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 15 and 17 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 are overcome by Applicants amendments to the claims in the response filed 01/09/2026. However, new issues under 112 are raised in the office action above in light of the amendments to claim 17.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 15 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.
In order to address the Applicants arguments, secondary reference to Compton et al. is used in the above rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA POWERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
LAURA POWERS
Examiner
Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785