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 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.
Claims 4, 26 and 31 are 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the at least one polymer resin" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if the applicant is referring back to the “at least one polymeric resin composition” or the “polymeric resin” from claim 1.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 26 recites the broad recitation “a thickness in the range of 0.2-0.8 mm”, and the claim also recites “[a thickness] preferably in the range of 0.4-0.6 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 31, the last line recites “the weight percentage of the at least one polyamine is between 1.08:1 and 1.12:1.” However, “1.08:1” and “1.12:1” denote a ratio, which is a unitless parameter, and cannot include a weight percentage as a unit. Therefore, the scope of this portion of the claim cannot be ascertained because the units and values used are not in agreement. The examiner suggests adding a weight percentage value or range, or provide additional information to reference what other parameter is included in the claimed ratio range.
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.
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 1, 3, 4 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2011032866A with a machine translation (concurrently submitted) being used as the English language equivalent translation (hereinafter “Nakayama”), and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2007/0160851 (hereinafter “Barancyk”).Regarding claim 1 Nakayama teaches a laminate for flooring (panel for forming a floor covering) 1 comprising a substrate (core layer) 2, a decorative layer (at least one top layer) 4, and a resin layer 3 applied therebetween (abstract; paragraph [0016]; and Figure 1). Nakayama teaches the decorative layer (at least one top layer) 4 comprises a base material, where the base material comprises a resin impregnated paper (at least one paper layer impregnated with at least one polymeric resin composition, the polymeric resin composition comprises a polymeric resin) (paragraphs [0021]). Nakayama teaches adhesiveness is improved by using a mixture of one or more of polyester, polyurethane made of isocyanate and polyol, polyacryl, polyamide resins and the like (paragraph [0090]). Nakayama teaches thermosetting resins are used for imparting scratch resistance, abrasion resistance, water resistance, and contamination resistance required for the flooring sheet, where examples of thermosetting resins include unsaturated polyester resin, polyurethane resin, epoxy resin, etc. (paragraphs [0094] and [0095]). Nakayama does not explicitly teach the resin (polymeric resin composition) from the resin impregnated paper comprises a polymeric resin having a trifunctional allophanate groups and/or trifunctional isocyanurate groups and at least one adhesive. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a mixture of a thermosetting resin, such as polyurethane resin, and at least one more of polyester (adhesive), polyacryl (adhesive), polyamide resins and the like to improve both: adhesiveness; and scratch resistance, abrasion resistance, water resistance, and contamination resistance to the decorative layer 4. Nakayama does not explicitly teach the polymeric resin: has a trifunctional allophanate groups and/or trifunctional isocyanurate groups; and is at least partially formed using at least one polyamine. Barancyk teaches a coating composition including a blend of polyurea and polyurethane (paragraph [0033]). Barancyk teaches the coating compositions of the present invention can be applied to substrates to impart one or more of a wide variety of properties such as but not limited to corrosion resistance, abrasion resistance, impact damage, flame and/or heat resistance, chemical resistance, UV light resistance, structural integrity, ballistic mitigation, blast mitigation, sound dampening, decoration and the like (paragraph [0039]). Barancyk teaches the polyurea is formed from a reaction mixture comprising isocyanate and an acrylated amine, where the (meth)acrylated amine is a reaction product of a polyamine (polymeric resin is at least partially formed using at least one polyamine) and a (meth)acrylate (abstract). Barancyk teaches the term "(meth)acrylate" denotes both the acrylate and the corresponding (meth)acrylate (paragraph [0016]). Barancyk teaches the term “isocyanate” corresponds to a polyfunctional containing two or more isocyanate functional groups (polymeric resin having trifunctional isocyanurate groups) (paragraph [0008]). Nakayama and Barancyk are analogous inventions in the field of polyurethane-based compositions. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the resin of the resin impregnated layer of Nakayama with the composition of Barancyk to impart one or more of corrosion resistance, abrasion resistance, impact damage, flame and/or heat resistance, chemical resistance, UV light resistance, structural integrity, ballistic mitigation, blast mitigation, sound dampening, and decoration to the decorative layer (at least one top layer) 4 of Nakayama.Regarding claim 3 In addition, Nakayama teaches the decorative layer may comprise a printing layer and a pattern layer sequentially printed on one surface of thin paper (paragraph [0026]). Nakayama teaches an ink composition used for the pattern layer includes cellulose resin (paragraph [0030]). Nakayama also teaches the base material comprises wood fiber (paragraph [0021]).Regarding claim 4 As previously noted, Nakayama renders obvious the resin (at least one polymeric resin composition comprising a polymeric resin) from the resin impregnated paper comprises a mixture of components which improves both: adhesiveness; and scratch resistance, abrasion resistance, water resistance, and contamination resistance to the decorative layer (paragraphs [0021], [0090], [0094] and [0095]). Nakayama does not explicitly teach the resin (at least one polymeric resin composition comprising a polymeric resin) is present in at least 30 wt%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate content of the resin using nothing more than routine experimentation to achieve the desired adhesiveness, scratch resistance, abrasion resistance, water resistance, and/or contamination resistance of the decorative layer. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Regarding claim 21 In addition, Nakayama teaches examples of the thermosetting resins includes melamine resin (1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine), melamine-urea resins (modified 1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine), etc. (paragraphs [0032] and [0095]).Regarding claim 22 As previously noted, Nakayama teaches adhesiveness is improved by using a mixture of one or more of polyester, polyurethane made of isocyanate and polyol, polyacryl, polyamide resins and the like (paragraph [0090]). Regarding claim 23 As previously noted, Nakayama teaches adhesiveness is improved by using a mixture of one or more of polyester, polyurethane made of isocyanate and polyol, polyacryl, polyamide resins and the like (paragraph [0090]). Nakayama does not explicitly teach the mixture (at least one adhesive) is present in at least 20 wt%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate content of the mixture (at least one adhesive) using nothing more than routine experimentation to achieve the desired improvement to the adhesiveness of the decorative layer. It has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art unless such a range is shown to be critical. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).Regarding claims 24 and 25 Regarding the at least one top layer, although the prior art does not explicitly disclose either: the at least one top layer has a shrinking rate of at most 0.2% measured according to ISO 23999; and/or the at least one top layer can be plied around a 10 mm mandrel when tested according to ASTM F137, the claimed property/function are deemed to naturally flow from the structure in the prior art since the combination of Nakayama and Barancyk teaches an invention with an identical and/or substantially identical structure and/or chemical composition as the claimed invention. See MPEP §2112.Regarding claim 26 In addition, Nakayama teaches the decorative layer (at least one top layer comprising an overlay, coating or finish layer comprising said at least one polymeric resin) 4 has a suitable thickness ranging from 20-300 µm (0.02-0.3 mm) (paragraph [0021]), which overlaps the claimed range.Regarding claim 27 In addition, Nakayama teaches the resin layer (part of the at least one top layer) 3 comprises a synthetic resin, the synthetic resin comprising polyethylene terephthalate, etc. (paragraphs [0016] and [0020]).Regarding claim 28 In addition, Barancyk teaches the composition including a blend of polyurea and polyurethane includes a polyurethane modified acrylate polymer, a polyurethane modified methacrylate, etc. (paragraphs [0016], [0017] and [0033]). Regarding claim 29 In addition, Barancyk teaches the composition including a blend of polyurea and polyurethane is at least partially formed using at least one diisocyanate selected from 1,6-diisocyanatohexane, 4,4'- diisocyanatodicyclohexylmethane, methylene-bis-phenyl isocyanate, toluene diisocyanate, hexamethylene diisocyanate, naphthalene diisocyanate, methylene bis-cyclohexylisocyanate, isophorone diisocyanate, or any combination thereof (paragraphs [0008] – [0013]).Regarding claims 30 and 31 In addition, Barancyk teaches the ratio of equivalents of isocyanate groups, where the term “isocyanate” includes diisocyanate, to volumetric equivalents of amine groups is greater than 1 (paragraphs [0007], [0008], [0010], [0034] and [0036]). Barancyk teaches the ratio of equivalents of isocyanate groups to amine groups may be selected to control the rate of cure of the coating composition (paragraph [0036]). Barancyk does not explicitly teach the wt% of the at least one diisocyanate is higher than the wt% of the at least one polyamine, and/or a ratio of the wt% of the at least one diisocyanate to the wt% of the at least one polyamine is at least 1.01:1. Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the contents of the at least one diisocyanate and the at least one polyamine (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine an appropriate ratio, on a weight basis, through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired rate of cure of the coating composition. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama and Barancyk as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of an article titled “Weathering of Plastics” by James E. Pickett (hereinafter “Pickett”).Regarding claim 2 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Nakayama does not explicitly teach the resin of the resin impregnated paper is at least partially entangled. Pickett teaches polymers are useful because their long chains entangle with each other (polymer resin being at least partially entangled) to give structural integrity (page 169, under the “8.3.1 Loss of Mechanical Properties” heading). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the polymer chains of the resin of the resin impregnated paper of Nakayama with entangled polymer chains, as taught by Pickett, to impart structural integrity to the decorative layer comprising said resin.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama and Barancyk as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0208410 (hereinafter “Bjorkman”).Regarding claim 5 The limitations for claim 1 have been set forth above. In addition, Nakayama teaches the flooring (panel for forming a floor covering) 1 comprises opposing side edges (Figures 1-5), which also corresponds to at least two pairs of opposing side edges because a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect the flooring to extend in a three dimensional plane, including having a length, a width, and a height. Nakayama does not explicitly teach the at least two pairs of opposing side edges of the flooring (panel for forming a floor covering) 1 being provided with complementary coupling parts. Bjorkman teaches a wood flooring (panel for forming a floor covering) comprising a core structure, a veneer, and a coating (abstract and paragraphs [0004] – [0010]). Bjorkman teaches the wood flooring (having at least two pairs of opposing side edges) includes a locking profile which forms a seam on a side edge where one or more planks or boards meet on a side edge with complementary coupling parts between adjacent planks or boards (abstract, paragraph [0003], and Figures 1-3), which corresponds to at least two pairs of opposing side edges wherein at least one pair of opposite side edges is provided with complementary coupling parts. Bjorkman teaches the locking profiles are along a first (long) edge (coupling part on a first side edge) and a second (short) edge (coupling part on a second side edge) (paragraph [0077]). Nakayama and Bjorkman are analogous inventions in the field of flooring panels. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify at least one pair of opposite side edges from the at least two pairs of opposing side edges of the floor panel of Nakayama with the locking profile (complementary coupling parts) of Bjorkman to provide a coupling means between adjacent flooring panels to impart a customization for the dimensions required in an installation of the flooring panels in different applications.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6-7, filed 1 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC §112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC §112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-12, filed 1 December 2025, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC §102(a)(1) and §103 in the previous Office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of the updated rejection of record, as detailed above.
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 BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783