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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Meersseman(EP 3115195A1).
Meersseman discloses a method of making a building panel by bonding together a substrate(6), sublayer(11), and surface layer(10) and forming a chamfer using a heated roll.(Figure 7, [0081]) One in the art would understand that a thermoplastic material when heated would plastically deform. The sublayer can be polypropylene.[0041] There is no suggestion that the sublayer is foamed.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Meersseman discloses the roller can be heated.[0081]
Regarding claim 4, Meersseman discloses forming an indentation in the side of the panel prior to forming the chamfer.(Figures 8 and 9)
Regarding claims 6 and 21, Meersseman discloses calibrating the sides to ensure the panels interlock.[0073]
Regarding claims 7, 9, and 18, polypropylene is a thermoplastic.
Regarding claim 8, Meersseman discloses pressing the sublayer to the substrate at the same time the groove is formed.[0083]; Figure 10)
Regarding claims 11 and 22, Meersseman discloses interlocking the panels.(Figure 6)
Regarding claims 13, 14, and 19, the groove 47 formed in the panel can be cut to form the bevel.(Figure 10; [0088])
Claim(s) 1, 10, 13, 16, and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Meersseman
(This rejection made do to the addition of claims 23-27) Meersseman discloses a method of making a building panel by bonding together a substrate(6), sublayer(11), and surface layer(10) and forming a chamfer using a heated roll.(Figure 7, [0081]) It also discloses the building panel can have a sublayer(8), located between the decorative layer and the substrate.(Figure 5, [0081]) This sublayer can be compressed by the forming of the chamfer[0081] and is made of PVC.[0058] One in the art would understand that a thermoplastic material when heated would plastically deform. There is no suggestion that the sublayer is foamed.
Regarding claim 10, the sublayer contains chalk, which is a filler.[0058]
Regarding claims 25-27, Meersseman discloses the decorative layer can comprise a printed polymer sheet(11).[0058]
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Meersseman as applied to claim 1 and further evidenced by uwinfoam.com/foam-density-and-chart/
Meersseman discloses the sublayer can have a density of less than 1.35 g/m3.[0048] One in the art would understand that was a typo and meant g/cm3 as a density of 1.3 g/m3 is less than that of a low density foam pillow by a factor of 1000, and kg/m3 would still be less dense than a pillow by a factor of 10 as shown by uwinfoam.
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) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meersseman in view of any of Anspach et al.(US Publication 2011/0041989), Meersseman et al.(US Publication 2013/0062006), and Vandevoorde et al.(US Publication 2014/0242342)
Meersseman does not disclose cooling the bevel using a cooling device. However, the use of a cooling device to cool down a surface after it has been heated is well-known and conventional in general in the manufacturing arts as shown by Anspach et al.[0027], Meersseman et al.[0030], and Vandevoorde et al.[0085], all of which show cooling a panel after shaping/embossing using a cooling device and would have been obvious for this reason.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meersseman.
While Meersseman does not disclose using heat in the embodiment where a groove is used to form a bevel, it does disclose using heat to form the bevel in a different embodiment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to use heat to help in forming the groove since Meersseman discloses using heat to compress the panel suggesting heat aids in deforming the panel.[0081]
Claim(s) 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meersseman as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Asada et al.
Meersseman does not disclose joining the layers together and then forming the groove. Asada et al. shows it is known to form the panel and then form the groove(Figures 1 and 2) or form them both at the same time.(Figure 3) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to forming the panel and then form the groove which is used to make the bevel since Asada et al. shows that forming the panel and then the groove is a known alternative to forming the panel at the same time the groove is formed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that layer 11 of Meersseman is not a sublayer, the only description of a sublayer provide by applicant is a layer between the surface layer and the substrate. Applicant has not provided a definition or explained why the carrier could not be considered a sublayer other than it is not described using that term. The entire top of Meersseman has a thickness of 0.5-3 mm[0022] and the wear layer can be preferably not thicker than 0.5 mm[0058], which leaves the carrier to be as thick as 2.5 mm. Applicant’s own specification indicates the sublayer can have a thickness of 0.1-2 mm, which is the same thickness as Meersseman. It is the same thickness, in the same location, and thus can be considered the same type of layer. The fact that its purpose is not solely to be compressed does not mean it is not acting in the same manner as a sublayer. However, the reference also discloses the presence of another layer between the top layers and the substrate, which can be made of a soft material(8) and which can be deformed when present when forming the bevel.[0081]
Regarding applicant’s argument that cooling provides advantages, and that examiner’s statement was simply conclusory, examiner has now provided references to back up her statement of it being well known and conventional, and the references are in the same art as they are making panels. This is therefore combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and the use of a known technique to improve a similar device.
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 BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746