DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rees et al (U.S. 20190300757) in view of Taylor et al. (U.S. 20130047538) and in further view of Paik (U.S. 20200208416).
In re Claim 1, 2, and 8-10, Rees teaches a floor panel for attachment to a flooring surface, the floor panel with a body (102); an upper decorative layer (101,201,701,801) disposed on the body; at least one attachment layer made up of a layer of pressure sensitive adhesive (103,203,303,403,503,603,703,803,903,913,930) disposed on the bottom surface/lower layer of the floor panel opposite the upper decorative layer. The adhesives form a number of ridges therein that define vacuum channels therebetween when positioned on the flooring surface. The attachment layer has the adhesive layer (803) with a number of fiber/strings (820) with separate sections positioned within the adhesive layer. Since the strings are located within the adhesives, their thickness is less than the thickness of the adhesive layer. The flooring panel is placed on a flooring surface and the panel with the attachment layer/pressure sensitive adhesive is pressed against the flooring surface. This compresses the attachment layer and pushes air out of the vacuum channels to create a vacuum within the channels. Since the hand or roller that applies the pressure will not be permanently be acting on it, the flooring panel is then released to secure the flooring panel to the flooring surface with the attachment layer and the vacuum created in the vacuum channels. As was noted, Rees teaches adhesives (803) with separate sections of reinforcing fibers/strings (820) on the lower surface of the floor panel. Fibers/strings are filaments that can be used to make textiles. Such fibers are not rigid and can flex and compress. (Figures 1-10b, Paragraph 0003,0055,0057,006)
Rees does not teach that the floor panel body has complementary engagement structures formed thereon. Rees does not teach that the adhesive layer is a continuous adhesive layer that extends between the number of strings to define channels over the continuous adhesive layer between adjacent pairs of the number of strings.
Taylor teaches a continuous adhesive layer (46) with adhesive peaks/ridges (70) that are linked adhesive material to form channels (72) and extend away from layer (32). This results in continuous adhesive coverage over the surface being glued. (Figure 6,7)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the adhesives (803) with strings (820) taught by Rees. Incorporating additional adhesive material along the underside of floor panel will result in a continuous layer of adhesive with channels between adjacent pairs of strings(820) within ridges. In the combination, the strings have been positioned along the lower surface of the panel with the continuous layer applied over the strings forming ridges and channel between the adjacent strings. The ridges would extend away from the bottom surface/lower layer. Having such a continuous layer of adhesive promotes a strong connection between the tile/floor panel and the subfloor.
Paik teaches a flooring tile with a body (2 core layer, optional filler layer 3) with tongue and groove (x,y) engagement structure formed thereon, an upper decorative layer (1), and a lower layer (acoustic layer 4, optional backing layer 5) on the body opposite the upper decorative layer (1). (Figures 1,2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rees with the teachings of Paik. The tongue and groove engagement structures allow for connection between adjacent tiles.
Regarding a lower layer disposed on the body opposite the upper decorative layer, the examiner notes that while this is not shown in Figure 8A embodiment of Rees, this is shown in Figure 3 shows a lower layer of projecting elements (304). The attachment later made of adhesive (303) is shown to be disposed on this lower layer. The embodiment shown in Figure 8B shows a scrim lower (821) layer of projecting elements (304). The attachment later made of adhesive (813) is shown to be disposed on this lower layer. As was also noted previously, Paik teaches a lower layer (acoustic layer 4, optional backing layer 5) on the body opposite the upper decorative layer. The addition of a lower layer would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date as it can provide a backing layer, act to enhance noise attenuation, and provide a degree of structural reinforcement to the tile. A combination of Rees, Taylor, and Paik would result in a lower layer disposed on the body opposite the upper decorative layer. Since the attachment/adhesive layer in Rees is at the bottom of the tile, in the combination, that attachment/adhesive is disposed on the lower layer.
In re Claims 8-10, under the principles of combination, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would obviously perform or be made by the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out or being made by the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will obviously perform or be made by the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In re Claims 3-7, Rees teaches that the pressure sensitive adhesives (503) extend in ridges across the width and length of the floor panel. The ridges (503) closest to the peripheral edges of the lower surface (508) of the tile shown in Figure 5 would be peripheral ridges. Incorporating the reinforcing fibers/strings (820) into the pressure sensitive adhesives will result in the strings also extend in ridges that across the width and length of the floor panel as well as around the periphery of the floor panel. (Figures 1-10B, Paragraph 0003,0055,0057,0061)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed8/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues against modifying Rees with the teachings of Taylor pointing out examples where the coverage of the back is either 25% or 45% or that the goal of Rees is to minimize the amount of adhesive. The cited coverages are exemplary embodiments and are not the only definite ones. Furthermore, the goal of minimizing adhesive can be accomplished in other ways such a reducing the number of ridges or spreading them further apart. The amount of glue can be lessened and still provide continuous coverage. The applicant argues against placing string with the Taylor ridges. This argument is moot since the examiner relied on Taylor to teach continuous adhesive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571) 272-6754. 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.
/ADAM G BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633