DETAILED ACTION
In response to RCE filed 12/18/2025. Claims 1-22 are pending. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 21 and 22 were amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drevet (WO 2018/158338) in view of Waterman et al. (US 3288729) with evidence from Polyvinyl Chloride definition (A Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering; Hereafter “PVC Definition”) and Nielsen et al. (Journal of Applied Physics).
Drevet discloses a panel for a floor covering. Concerning claims 1, 3, 7, and 15, Drevet discloses the panel comprises a decorative layer disposed on a first PVC support layer, a foam layer, and a second PVC backing layer, wherein the support layer and backing layer each have a density from 1200 to 2100 kg/m3 and at least 1600 kg/m3 respectively (pp. 3-5; p. 4, lines 4-9; p. 11, lines 24-25). As evidenced by the PVC Definition, rigid PVC has a Young’s modulus (or modulus of elasticity) of 3.7 GPa with a relative density of 1.4 and a flexible PVC has a Young’s modulus of 1.4 GPa with a relative density of 1.2, wherein at least the PVC backing layer of Drevet would meet the instant claims. Based on the above, one can assume that the addition of plasticizer lowers the density of PVC given that relative density of a flexible PVC has a lower relative density. As evidenced by Nielsen, unplasticized PVC has density of 1.41 g/cm3 (or 1410 kg/m3) (Nielsen; Table 1). While it is noted that Drevet discloses the preferred PVC is a PVC that is “virtually plasticizer free”, this does not necessarily exclude lightly plasticized PVC compositions which is evidenced by the density for the support layer being 1200 to 2100 kg/m3. As such, the non-preferred compositions for the support layer can include some level of plasticizer. Additionally, “virtually plasticizer free” can be taken to mean that some level of plasticizer can be included so long as the density of the support layer is within the disclosed range and is still is rigid. However, Drevet is silent to the foam layer being PVC.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the foam layer has a preferred density of 100 to 300 kg/m3 (p. 8, lines 10-17). With respect to claim 6, the overall thickness of the panel is from 4.5 to 8.0 mm, wherein the backing and support layers are each from 2.5 to 4.0 mm and 0.5 to 5.0 mm (p. 3, lines 12-19; p. 5, lines 24-25). However, Drevet is silent to the foam layer being PVC.
Waterman discloses an open-celled polyvinyl chloride foam. Concerning the foam layer being PVC and plasticized, Waterman discloses the foam is formed from a plastisol comprising PVC and a plasticizer, wherein the resulting foam has a density from 5 to 50 lb/ft3 (or about 80 to 800 kg/m3), wherein the resulting foam is dimensionally stable, soft to touch, and provides cushioning (cols. 2-11). Examiner notes that a non-porous plastisol can be applied as a skin layer. As such, for the above properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the PVC foam of Waterman as the foam layer of Drevet.
Claims 8, 10, 12-13, 17, 19, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drevet (WO 2018/158338) in view of Waterman et al. (US 3288729) with evidence from Polyvinyl Chloride definition (A Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering; Hereafter “PVC Definition”) and Nielsen et al. (Journal of Applied Physics) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boyadjian et al. (US 20100018799).
The prior art discloses the above, including Waterman disclosing the plastisol for forming the PVC foam comprises 35 to 400 parts plasticizer per 100 parts PVC resin (col. 2, lines 26-46). The resulting weight percentage is from about 26 to 80 wt% plasticizer and from 20 to 74 wt% PVC which meet the limitations of claims 21 and 22. However, the prior art is silent to the claimed second damping layer.
Boyadjian discloses acoustic enhancement of a covering. Concerning the claimed second damping layer, Boyadjian discloses a non-woven fiberglass layer laminated to the surface of a bare floor, wherein the non-woven fiberglass layer prevents the transmission of vibratory energy into adjacent rooms (para. 0036-0104; Table 4). While it is noted that the thickness is preferred to be from 3 to 7 mm, the thickness is a preferred embodiment dependent upon the other layers within the laminate. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any thickness and density, including the claimed thickness and density, in order to achieve the desired damping and acoustic insulating properties. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the non-woven fiberglass layer of Boyadjian to the laminate of Drevet and Waterman, in order to prevent vibratory energy from being heard or transferred in adjacent rooms.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 11, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman et al. (US 3424270) in view of Drevet (WO 2018/158338) with evidence from Polyvinyl Chloride definition (A Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering; Hereafter “PVC Definition”) and Nielsen et al. (Journal of Applied Physics).
Hartman discloses a viscoelastic sound-blocking flooring material. Concerning claims 1 and 2, Hartman discloses two face panels and a core material that is formed from a plasticized PVC and a high density filler material that is not foamed, resulting in a mass per square foot of 0.5 to 20 lbs/ft2 (cols. 2-6). However, Hartman is silent to the decorative layer and the face panels comprising PVC. Given that the PVC Definition discloses that plasticized PVC has a Young’s modulus of 1.4 GPa, the composition as shown in Example 1 of Hartman would meet the claimed Young’s modulus. Hartman further discloses the thicknesses of the core and face panels can be any thickness depending upon end use and degree of sound loss desired (col. 3, lines 38-60). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the core layer be any thickness, including the claimed thickness, in order to provide the desired sound loss. However, Hartman is silent to the decorative layer, the face panels comprising PVC, and thicknesses of the face panel.
Drevet discloses a panel for a floor covering. Concerning claims 1, 2, 7, and 15, Drevet discloses the panel comprises a decorative layer disposed on a first unplasticized PVC support layer and a second unplasticized PVC backing layer, wherein the decorative layer provides aesthetic features, wherein the support layer and backing layer each have a density from 1200 to 2100 kg/m3 and at least 1600 kg/m3 respectively (pp. 3-5; p. 4, lines 4-9; p. 11, lines 24-25). As evidenced by the PVC Definition, rigid PVC has a Young’s modulus (or modulus of elasticity) of 3.7 GPa with a relative density of 1.4 and a flexible PVC has a Young’s modulus of 1.4 GPa with a relative density of 1.2, wherein at least the PVC backing layer of Drevet would meet the instant claims. Based on the above, one can assume that the addition of plasticizer lowers the density of PVC given that relative density of a flexible PVC has a lower relative density. As evidenced by Nielsen, unplasticized PVC has density of 1.41 g/cm3 (or 1410 kg/m3) (Nielsen; Table 1). While it is noted that Drevet discloses the preferred PVC is a PVC that is “virtually plasticizer free”, this does not necessarily exclude lightly plasticized PVC compositions which is evidenced by the density for the support layer being 1200 to 2100 kg/m3. As such, the non-preferred compositions for the support layer can include some level of plasticizer. Additionally, “virtually plasticizer free” can be taken to mean that some level of plasticizer can be included so long as the density of the support layer is within the disclosed range and the support is still rigid. The PVC support and backing layers having the density as disclosed provide rigid and solid properties and evening out any unevenness on the underlying surface on which the panel is laid (p. 11, lines 9-13; p. 5, lines 20-22). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the unplasticized PVC backing and support layers of Drevet as the two face panels of Hartman, in order to provide rigid and solid properties and evening out any unevenness on the underlying surface on which the panel is laid.
Claims 8, 10, 12-13, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartman et al. (US 3424270) in view of Drevet (WO 2018/158338) with evidence from Polyvinyl Chloride definition (A Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering; Hereafter “PVC Definition”) and Nielsen et al. (Journal of Applied Physics) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boyadjian et al. (US 20100018799).
The prior art discloses the above but is silent to the claimed second damping layer.
Boyadjian discloses acoustic enhancement of a covering. Concerning the claimed second damping layer, Boyadjian discloses a non-woven fiberglass layer laminated to the surface of a bare floor, wherein the non-woven fiberglass layer prevents the transmission of vibratory energy into adjacent rooms (para. 0036-0104; Table 4). While it is noted that the thickness is preferred to be from 3 to 7 mm, the thickness is a preferred embodiment dependent upon the other layers within the laminate. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any thickness and density, including the claimed thickness and density, in order to achieve the desired damping and acoustic insulating properties. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the non-woven fiberglass layer of Boyadjian to the laminate of Hartman and Drevet, in order to prevent vibratory energy from being heard or transferred in adjacent rooms.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 5-6, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection under Drevet in view of Hall with evidence from PVC Definition and Nielsen have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn. Examiner acknowledges the instant amendments as overcoming the previous rejection. However, Drevet and the evidentiary references are still applicable as shown above. With respect to Drevet, Applicant asserts that Drevet does not reasonably teach each rigid layer modulus of elasticity. While it is agreed that Drevet does not recite a specific modulus of elasticity, Examiner has set forth a technical basis of why the materials of the rigid layers would have the claimed modulus of elasticity. Applicant has provided no evidence, showing, or technical reasoning rebutting the specific reasons provided by the Examiner. Namely, the density of the material and chemical identity of the material are the same as that disclosed and claimed. As such, it is reasonable that the modulus of elasticity for each rigid PVC layer of Drevet would be within the claimed range.
Regarding Applicant’s assertions that the core layer of Drevet would not be plasticized, while it is agreed that the term “plasticized” as it relates to the core layer is not recited, there is no specific disclosure that the core layer cannot be plasticized. To that end, Waterman is applicable to the instant claims as show above. Examiner notes that Applicant’s assertions regarding the core layer of Drevet appear to be directed to anticipatory rejections. The previous and instant rejections are obviousness rejections wherein the secondary references previously and currently applied are directed to the core layer. Given that the Examiner has provided reasons for the combination as shown above, the Drevet reference is still applicable as a primary reference in an obviousness rejection.
With respect to the rejection under Hartman, Applicant has not provided any specific arguments and as such, the rejection is maintained as shown above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783