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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 11, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 6 and 13 are objected to because the “2” should be in superscript to designate the meters unit is squared; claim 11 is objected to because the word “natural” is repeated. 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 13 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 13, the phrase "in the case of flax" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Because the disputed limitation may reasonably be interpreted to be optional, the Examiner takes the position that flax is not required by in the textile layer of claim 13.
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.
Claim(s) 1–5, 8, 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duarte (WO 2018/135960 A1) in view of Baek (KR 20200099859 A).
Duarte teaches the formation of a cork cloth comprising a textile fabric layer, an adhesive film, and a sheet of cork material. Duarte abstract. The adhesive film is water-based and may comprise multiple polymers including ethyl vinyl acetate copolymer. Id. Description of Invention.
Duarte fails to teach that the water-based adhesive is biodegradable.
Baek teaches the formation of an eco-friendly, functional sheet comprising cork, thermoplastic polyurethane adhesive, and a nonwoven fabric layer. Baek abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included thermoplastic polyurethane adhesive to the adhesive film of Duarte to make the cork cloth eco-friendly (i.e, biodegradable).
Claim 2 is rejected as the textile fabric layer of Duarte may comprise natural fibers, synthetic fibers, or a combination thereof. Duarte Description of Invention. Claim 5 is rejected as the cork material may have a thickness of up to 0.7mm. Id.
The cork cloth of Duarte is formed by gluing at least one cork material sheet on a first face of a textile by means of an adhesive film. Id. The prior art reference fails to teach whether the adhesive film is first applied to the cork material sheet or textile. However, it would have been obvious to have applied the adhesive film to the textile rather than the cork material layer because the artisan is merely selecting from a finite list of number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (e.g., textile or cork material sheet). In this instance, the adhesive film is either applied to the cork material sheet or textile first, or both simultaneously. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421.
Claim 10 is rejected as the cork cloth of Duarte may be used to cover flooring. Duarte abstract.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over claim Duarte and Baek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boyadjian (FR 2 934 288).
Duarte and Baek fail to teach a textile layer having a mass per unit area of between about 690 g/m2 and 1,000 g/m2.
Boyadjian teaches composite material for use as an insulating material, like cork, that is backed by a fabric material having a basis weight of between 300 g/m2 and 900 g/m2, which favors the spreading of sound wave. Boyadjian Description.
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have looked to Boyadjian for guidance as to suitable basis weights for fabric materials that are part of an insulating composite.
Claim(s) 7, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over claim Duarte and Baek as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brauers (US 2019/0255826 A1).
Duarte and Baek fail to teach a grain size for the cork.
Brauers teaches the formation of a composite material made from cork granules and flax fibers. Brauers abstract, ¶¶ 14, 23. When used as a top layer, a grain size of the cork granules ranges from about 100 microns to 2,000 microns. Id. ¶ 15.
It would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have looked to Brauer for guidance as to suitable cork granule (i.e., grain) sizes in order to successfully make a composite with a top layer of cork. Additionally, it would have been obvious to have selected the flax fibers of Brauers as the “natural” fibers to be used in Duarte as Brauers demonstrates their applicability with cork materials.
Claim(s) 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over claim Duarte and Baek as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of DE 202014006548 U1, “ ’548.”
Duarte and Baek fail to teach the sanding of the cork layer.
’548 teaches the formation of a composite material comprising a carrier layer that includes lyocell fibers, a cover layer comprising cork, and a connecting layer. ’548 abstract. The cover layer is preferably roughened via sanding to make the layer supple. Id. Description.
The ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have sanded the cork layer of Duarte after the formation of the cork cloth as it is easier to sand an article that is fully formed rather than a single layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights