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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on January 23, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 16 and 29 are amended; claims 1-15, 17, 18, and 26 are cancelled; claims 31-35 are withdrawn; resulting in claims 16, 19-25, and 27-30 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 16, it is suggested to amend at least the first instance of the term “PVC” to recite the full name of the material, e.g., --polyvinyl chloride (PVC)--, in order to improve the clarity of the claim.
Regarding claim 16, it is suggested to amend the limitation in lines 18-19 reciting “less than the total thickness of the wear layer and being at least 50% of said total thickness” to --less than the total thickness of the wear layer and at least 50% of the total thickness of the wear layer-- in order to clarify that the depth of at least 50% is relative to the thickness of the wear layer. It is noted that lines 11-12 recite that the floor panel also has a “total thickness”, such that the phrase “said total thickness” could be interpreted as referring to the total thickness of either the wear layer or of the floor panel. Based on the disclosure in [48] of the as-filed specification, the depth (d) of the chamfered surface is interpreted as extending through at least 50% and less than 100% of the total thickness (t) of the wear layer.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16, 19-24, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baert ‘759 (US 2021/0363759, previously cited) in view of Caselli et al. (US 2021/0079666, previously cited) and Baert ‘031 (US 2019/0383031, previously cited).
Regarding claim 16, Baert ‘759 teaches a decorative panel (100; floor panel) comprising a core layer (101; substrate), a décor layer (105; decorative layer), and a first transparent wear layer (106) ([0048]-[0049], see Fig. 1 reproduced below), wherein the décor layer is positioned between the core layer and the wear layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
245
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Baert ‘759 teaches that each of the core layer, the wear layer, and the décor layer can include a thermoplastic synthetic material such as PVC ([0014], [0020], [0028]), such that the wear layer comprises transparent polyvinyl chloride. Each floor panel comprises a chamfer (103; lowered edge region in the form of a chamfer) provided at at least one of the side edges (101c, 101d), wherein the chamfered surface shown in Fig. 1 passes through a depth of the wear layer (106) that is between 50% and 100% of the total thickness of the wear layer [0046]. Baert ‘759 teaches that an angle at which the chamfer provides the best visual effect ranges from 2 degrees to 30 degrees, preferably 6 to 9 degrees ([0019]), which overlaps or falls within the claimed range for the angle at which the chamfer subtends the upper surface of the floor panel. Baert ‘759 further teaches that these decorative panels with chamfered edges allow for a higher degree of error in both production and installation, as height differences are not noticeable even if the panels are perfectly levelled [0002].
Baert ‘759 teaches that the panel can optionally comprise a backing layer attached to the bottom surface of the core layer, such as a balancing layer or an acoustic layer ([0031], [0049]). The acoustic layer (foamed backing layer) may be composed of a foamed layer having a density between 65 kg/m3 and 300 kg/m3 ([0031]), which overlaps the claimed range. Baert ‘759 differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach a compressive strength value of the foamed acoustic backing layer.
However, Caselli et al. teaches a floor element (1) comprising a decorative layer (2) disposed above a support layer (3) ([0092], Figs. 1-2). An underlayer (24; foamed backing layer) is disposed beneath the floor elements and is configured to act as a moisture and/or noise barrier ([0123], Fig. 7). The underlayer is made of a compressible material, preferably a foamed material, and has a compressive strength of between 50 and 500 kPa at 0.5 deflection, measured according to ASTM D3575, which helps the underlayer to absorb unevenness of the subfloor to avoid lippage in the floor covering and to improve its planarity ([0067], [0123], [0127]). The underlayer also has a sound transmission class of greater than or equal to STC 66, measured according to ASTM E90 ([0069]), which corresponds to a high level of sound attenuation.
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 decorative panel of Baert ‘759 by selecting a foamed material for the acoustic backing layer having a compressive strength value within the claimed range, as taught by Caselli et al., in order for the backing layer to improve the planarity of the floor panel and to act as a noise barrier.
Although Baert ‘759 teaches that the thickness of the wear layer is about 0.15 to 1 mm, wherein the total thickness of the decorative top layer is about 0.17 to 1.07 mm ([0014]), the reference does not expressly teach a total thickness of the floor panel.
However, Baert ‘031 teaches a panel (1) suitable for assembling a waterproof floor or wall covering by interconnecting a plurality of panels with each other, wherein the panel comprises a support layer (12a; substrate) made of rigid PVC material, a décor layer (12b), a wear layer (12c), and a core layer (10; foamed backing layer) attached to a back side of the support layer opposite the wear layer ([0079], [0082], Figs. 1-2). Similar to Baert ‘759 and Caselli et al., Baert ‘031 teaches that the core layer (10) is made of a foam material [0070].
Baert ‘031 further teaches that the maximum overall thickness of the panel lies in the range of 4 to 15 mm, preferably between 4.5 and 8.0 mm [0021]. The thickness of the core layer is preferably smaller than the thickness of the substrate layer in order to achieve a panel with adequate waterproof and acoustic properties, which also has sufficient rigidity and adequate resistance to indentation [0015]. In particular, the core layer has a thickness of 0.5 to 3.0 mm, the support layer has a thickness of 2.0 to 8.0 mm, the wear layer has a thickness of 0.15 to 0.50 mm, and the décor layer has a thickness of 0.05 to 3.0 mm ([0019]-[0020], [0035]). The thickness of the substrate layer is such that it allows for the provision of interconnecting profiles of a tongue and groove type [0009].
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 floor panel of Baert ‘759 in view of Caselli et al. by setting a total thickness of the panel within the claimed range, as taught by Baert ‘031. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to set the thicknesses of the layers such that the total thickness falls within the claimed range in order to achieve the necessary acoustic properties, rigidity, and resistance to indentation, and to allow for an interconnecting tongue and groove profile to be provided in the substrate layer. Moreover, Baert ‘031 teaches a total thickness of the panel 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. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 19, Baert ‘759 in view of Caselli et al. and Baert ‘031 teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 above. Although Baert ‘759 does not expressly teach a thickness of the foamed backing layer, Baert ‘031 teaches that the core layer (10; foamed backing layer) has a reduced thickness in comparison to the support layer (12a; substrate) in order to achieve a panel with adequate waterproof and acoustic properties, which also has a sufficient rigidity and/or adequate resistance to indentation [0015]. Baert ‘031 teaches that by using a relatively thin core layer, the panel as a whole is less susceptible to deformation [0016]. In particular, the core layer has a thickness of 0.5 to 3.0 mm, preferably 0.8 to 1.5 mm [0019].
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 floor panel of Baert ‘759 in view of Caselli et al. and Baert ‘031 by setting a thickness of the foamed backing layer within the claimed range, as taught by Baert ‘031, in order to achieve the desired acoustic properties and resistance to indentation and deformation. Moreover, Baert ‘031 teaches a thickness of the foamed backing layer 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. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 20, Baert ‘759 in view of Caselli et al. and Baert ‘031 teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 above, and Baert ‘759 further teaches that the acoustic layer (foamed backing layer) may be composed of an irradiation-crosslinked polyethylene (IXPE) [0031].
Regarding claim 21, Baert ‘759 in view of Caselli et al. and Baert ‘031 teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 above, and Baert ‘759 further teaches that the core layer (substrate) may comprise a thermoplastic material such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) [0028].
Regarding claims 22-24, Baert ‘759 in view of Caselli et al. and Baert ‘031 teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 above, and Baert ‘759 further teaches that the opposite side edges of the core layer are provided with complementary coupling parts [0029]. The interlocking coupling parts may be reinforced to improve strength and prevent breakage thereof during installation of the panels, where reinforcing materials include fiberglass mesh ([0029]), which comprises glass-fibre and has an open structure.
Regarding claim 27, Baert ‘759 in view of Caselli et al. and Baert ‘031 teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 above, and Baert ‘759 further teaches that the décor layer (decorative layer) may be a PVC decorative film or may be formed by a decorative print which is printed directly on the upper surface of the core layer [0020]. The PVC decorative film therefore corresponds to the claimed printed PVC layer.
Regarding claim 28, Baert ‘759 in view of Caselli et al. and Baert ‘031 teaches all of the limitations of claim 27 above. Although Baert ‘759 teaches that the total thickness of the decorative top layer is typically between 0.17 and 1.07 mm, wherein the wear layer has a thickness of about 0.15 to 1 mm and has a larger thickness than the décor layer ([0014]), the reference does not expressly teach a thickness of the printed PVC layer.
However, as noted above, Baert ‘031 teaches that the thickness of the décor layer is about 0.05 to 3.0 mm ([0035]), which overlaps the claimed range. Similar to Baert ‘759, Baert ‘031 teaches that the décor layer may be made from PVC and is provided with a decorative side that is formed by digital printing [0036].
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 floor panel of Baert ‘759 in view of Caselli et al. and Baert ‘031 by setting a thickness of the printed PVC layer within the claimed range, as taught by Baert ‘031, given that the reference teaches such a thickness to be suitable for use as a printed PVC décor layer. Moreover, Baert ‘031 teaches a thickness of the printed PVC décor layer 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. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 29, Baert ‘759 in view of Caselli et al. and Baert ‘031 teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 above, and Baert ‘759 further teaches that the upper surface of the decorative top layer can be provided with a coating layer (topcoat) which provides a protective function, wherein the coating layer can be an ultraviolet (UV) curable coating ([0010], [0022]).
Regarding claim 30, Baert ‘759 in view of Caselli et al. and Baert ‘031 teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 above, and Baert ‘759 further teaches that the decorative top layer can include a tactile texture (relief comprising a plurality of recesses), wherein the tactile texture can be provided in at least one wear layer [0021].
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baert ‘759 (US 2021/0363759, previously cited) in view of Caselli et al. (US 2021/0079666, previously cited) and Baert ‘031 (US 2019/0383031, previously cited) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Boucké (US 2022/0018140, previously cited).
Regarding claim 25, Baert ‘759 in view of Caselli et al. and Baert ‘031 teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 above. Although Baert ‘759 teaches that a reinforcing material may be provided in the complementary coupling parts of the core layer in order to improve strength and prevent breakage thereof during installation of the panels ([0029]), the reference does not expressly teach that the reinforcing material within the core layer is closer to the foamed backing layer than to the decorative layer.
However, in the analogous art of floor panels, Boucké teaches a decorative panel (100) comprising an upper substrate (451) including a decorative layer (455), an abrasion resistant wear layer (456), and a transparent finishing layer (457), wherein the upper substrate is affixed to an upper side (453) of a core (452) ([0129], Figs. 4a-4b). The core is provided with at least one reinforcement layer (454), such as a glass fiber layer incorporated (i.e., embedded) in the core ([0127], Figs. 4a-4b). Boucké teaches that it is not unlikely that the core comprises a plurality of reinforcement layers, wherein a first reinforcement layer may be located in a top portion of the core, while a second reinforcement layer may be located in a bottom portion of the core [0071]. Boucké further teaches, however, that at least one reinforcement layer extends in only one coupling profile of the first and second coupling profiles (e.g., tongue-groove connectors), in particular in only the lower profile [0076]. Boucké teaches that the advantage of applying the reinforcing layer in only the lower profile is that the flexibility of the upper profile is greater than that of the lower profile, such that the upper profile is easier to deform when necessary to realize coupling between the coupling profiles of adjacent panels [0076].
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 floor panel of Baert ‘759 in view of Caselli et al. and Baert ‘013 by arranging the reinforcement layer within the substrate such that it is closer to the foamed backing layer than to the decorative layer, as suggested by Boucké, in order to impart the desired rigidity and strength to the panel while maintaining the flexibility of the upper side edge coupling profile to facilitate easy interconnection of adjacent panels.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In light of the amendments to claim 16 in the response filed January 23, 2026, the previous rejections based on Baert ‘759 in view of Caselli et al. and Baert ‘031 have been modified to address the new limitations requiring that the wear layer comprises transparent PVC and that the wear layer comprises a chamfered surface that is at least 50% and less than the total thickness. The Applicant’s arguments will be addressed insofar as they apply to the current grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-12 of the remarks filed January 23, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant first argues on pages 8-10 of the remarks that Baert ‘759 does not teach the limitation requiring that a foamed backing layer is attached to a side of the substrate opposite to the wear layer, and that one of ordinary skill in the art considering the teachings of Baert ‘759 and Baert ‘031 would be led away from a foamed backing layer or from positioning an acoustic layer on a side of the substrate opposite to the wear layer as claimed.
These arguments are not persuasive. With respect to the Applicant’s argument directed to the disclosure in paragraph [0031] of Baert ‘759 failing to expressly teach a specific location of the acoustic layer, it is noted that the acoustic layer disclosed in paragraph [0031] is discussed in the context of backing layers which may be attached to the bottom surface of the core layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore at once envisage the claimed arrangement (i.e., the acoustic layer being attached to a side of the core layer opposite the wear layer) based on the disclosure that such backing layers described in paragraph [0031] may be attached to the bottom surface of the core layer.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach the foamed acoustic layer to the bottom surface of the core layer given that such arrangements are known in the art. For example, Baert ‘031 teaches a foamed core layer (10; foamed backing layer) attached to the bottom surface of the support layer (12a; substrate) (Figs. 1-2). Although the floor panel taught by Baert ‘031 also includes a backing layer (14) disposed below the foamed core layer (10), it is noted that the current language of the claim merely requires the foamed backing layer to be attached to a side of the substrate opposite the wear layer and does not specifically preclude the presence of any additional layer(s) below the foamed backing layer. Therefore, based on the teachings of Baert ‘759 and Baert ‘013, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide any combination and/or arrangement of a foamed backing layer, a balancing layer, a rigid backing layer, etc. on a bottom surface of the core layer opposite the wear layer, including where a foamed backing layer is attached to the core layer, depending upon the desired properties (e.g., acoustic insulation, moisture barrier, dimensional stability, etc.). The Applicant’s argument that the combination of references teaches away from the claimed invention is therefore not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues on page 10 of the remarks that the rejection’s combination of a density of a foamed acoustic layer from Baert ‘759 with a compressive strength of an underlayer from Caselli is erroneous because one skilled in the art would have no motivation or reasonable expectation of success for modifying a foam material of the acoustic layer to preserve the disclosed density while simultaneously configuring the foam material to reach the disclosed compressive strength.
This argument is not persuasive. As explained in the prior art rejections above, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to form the foamed acoustic layer to have the compressive strength disclosed by Caselli et al. given that Caselli et al. teaches that such a compressive strength improves the ability of the foamed layer to absorb unevenness of the subfloor, preventing lippage and improving the planarity of the floor cover. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in forming a foamed acoustic layer having both the density taught by Baert ‘759 and the compressive strength taught by Caselli et al. given that the compressive strength can be adjusted in a variety of different ways without substantially affecting the density of the foam (e.g., by adjusting the polymer material, by adding reinforcing fillers or cross-linking agents, and/or by changing the cell structure of the foam).
Furthermore, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that the acoustic layer of Baert ‘759 has a different purpose and a different position than the underlayer of Caselli et al., it is noted that both foamed structures serve the same purpose of improving the acoustic properties (i.e., reducing the sound transmission) of the floor panel and are positioned on the bottom side of the substrate facing the subfloor. Given that Caselli et al. is relied upon only for teaching a range of compressive strength values suitable for improving the planarity of the floor panel and preventing lippage (i.e., vertical displacement between adjacent panels), the teachings of Caselli et al. are reasonably applicable to the foamed acoustic layer taught by Baert ‘759.
The Applicant further argues on pages 11-12 of the remarks that the cited references do not disclose or suggest the new limitation requiring that the chamfer depth is greater than 50% of the wear layer thickness while remaining less than the full thickness, and that the claimed floor panel provides a synergistic interplay between the density and compressive strength of the foamed backing layer and the presence of a lowered edge region.
These arguments are not persuasive. As explained in the prior art rejections above, Fig. 1 of Baert ‘759 illustrates a configuration in which the chamfered surface has a depth that passes through greater than 50% and less than 100% of the thickness of the wear layer, thus satisfying the new limitation of the claim. With respect to the ability of the lowered edge region to mask vertical movement between adjacent floor panels, as noted above, Caselli et al. teaches that setting the compressive strength of the foam layer within the disclosed range serves to improve the planarity of the floor panel and prevent lippage (i.e., vertical displacement between adjacent panels). Baert ‘759 similarly teaches that the beveled panels allow for a higher degree of error in production or installation, as height differences are not noticeable even if the panels are not perfectly levelled [0002]. The prior art therefore recognizes the advantages associated with the claimed features, as described in paragraphs [26] and [48] of the instant specification cited by the Applicant. Nevertheless, it is noted that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See MPEP 2145(II).
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 REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights