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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment and response filed on December 19, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2016/023839.
Regarding the amendment to the preamble that states that the floor protection system is “configured to be applied to a floor substrate and comprising in order from a floor substrate side”, this amendment is intended use and does not recite any structural limitations. Specifically, the claimed floor protection system does not require a floor substrate and; thus, the phrase “in order from a floor substrate side” does not impart any specific arrangement with respect to the claimed epoxy resin layer and polyurethane layer. That is, the claimed layered system of claim 1 simply requires a polyurethane layer (ii) and an epoxy resin layer (iv), wherein layers (i) and (iii) are optional layers in claim 1, and top layer and bottom layer is simply a function of which surface of the layered system is viewed and can be readily changed by rotating the layered system 180 degrees.
Regarding claim 1, WO ‘839 discloses a floor protection system and method of protecting floors [0161] comprising a polyurethane coating [0163] and an epoxy seal obtained from a resin component containing at least one liquid epoxy resin and a curing agent component containing at least one amine that corresponds to claimed formula (I) (page 3, line 11, claim 1).
Regarding the limitations of substituents of for A, Z, and Y in claims 1 and 6-8, the limitation that the two N atoms to which the A radical is bonded are separated from one another by at least two C atoms, and the limitation that the amine of formula (I) contains a total of at least 8 C atoms, these limitations are meet by the disclosure of WO ‘839 of formula (I) as further detailed in paragraphs [0063]-[0066].
Regarding claims 9 and 10, WO ‘839 discloses a further amine that has at least four aliphatic amine hydrogens present that is 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexane [0066]. The use of this disclosed further amine along with formula (I) would result in the percentage of amine hydrogens present in the curing agent component that come from amines of formula (I) and at least one further amine having at least four aliphatic amine hydrogens to be within the range of claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, the epoxy resin seal has a thickness of 50 microns to 5 mm [0168].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2016/023839 in view of Häberle et al. (US Pub 2017/0002231).
Regarding claim 2, WO ‘839 does not disclose the thickness of the polyurethane coating layer. US ‘231 discloses a polyurethane coating layer that can be applied to an epoxy resin [0159] that can be used to provide a protective coating to floors [0148]. The polyurethane coating can have a thickness of 0.5 to 3 mm [0142]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have produced the floor protective system of WO ‘839 wherein the polyurethane coating has a thickness of 0.5 to 3 mm, as disclosed in US ‘231, motivated by the desire to obtain a system that provides ample protection and sealing properties.
Regarding claim 3, US ‘231 discloses that the polyurethane coating has an elongation at break of at least 200% (Table 1).
Regarding claim 5, US ‘231 discloses that quartz sand can be scattered onto the polyurethane coating [0147]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have scattered quartz sand onto the polyurethane coating of WO ‘839, as taught in US ‘231, motivated by the desire to provide a textured and non-slip surface to the floor protection system.
Regarding claim 12, US ‘231 discloses polyurethane coating forms a resilient layer that provides dynamic bridging over cracks [0143]. Further, US ‘231 discloses that the coating provides excellent sealing over a wide range of temperature and moisture levels, good weathering resistance, excellent mechanical properties with high strength and almost no defects, such as bubble formations [0008-0009]. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the floor protective system of WO ‘839 as modified by US ‘231 would pass the claimed EN 1062-7 method 3.2 dynamic crack bridging test without cracks in the epoxy resin seal.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2016/023839 in view of WO2019/134821. US Pub 2020/0354604 is the US equivalent to WO ‘821 and is relied upon in the below rejection.
WO ‘839 is relied on as detailed above. See rationale for claims 1 and 9 in paragraphs #6-#9. US ‘604 discloses that the epoxy resin layer can be used as a basecoat, leveling layer, base layer, or seal layer of a floor covering in combination with a polyurethane coating layer [0122]. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have used the epoxy resin layer of WO ‘839 as the seal layer in a floor covering, motivated by the desire to obtain a flooring covering that contains a transparent seal having outstanding lightfastness and stability against yellowing, as taught by US ‘604 ([0122]-[0128]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2016/023839 in view of WO2019/134821 in further view of Häberle et al (US Pub 2017/0002231).
As set forth above in paragraphs #13 and #14, US ‘231 discloses that the polyurethane coating can have a thickness of 0.5 to 3 mm [0142] and an elongation at break of at least 200% (Table 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. None of the prior art discloses the claimed floor protection system wherein the polyurethane coating consists of a lower polyurethane layer having a thickness of 1.2 to 3 mm and an upper polyurethane layer having a thickness of 1.2 to 3 mm and having a tensile strength of at least 9 MPa.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly added claim limitations are addressed above in the modified prior art rejections.
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 Blaine Copenheaver whose telephone number is (571)272-1156. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 at (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.
/BLAINE COPENHEAVER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781