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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/10/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 36, 38-42 and 49-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallin, US 2011/0146188 in view of Wilson et al., US 2012/0240502.
Regarding claim 36:
Wallin discloses a panel, wherein the panel comprises a substrate (30) and a top layer (31),
wherein the top layer comprises a decor layer and a wear layer (para. 0007),
wherein the panel is provided at a first pair of opposite edges with coupling parts, cooperating which each other, substantially in the form of male coupling parts and female coupling parts, for coupling two such panels at their first pair of opposite edges to each other in a floor, wall or ceiling covering (refer to Figs. 2a and 2b);
wherein the male coupling part is provided at the male edge of the first pair of opposite edges;
wherein the coupling parts are provided with mechanical locking parts which prevent the drifting apart of two coupled panels into the direction perpendicular to the surface of the coupled panels as well as into the direction perpendicular to the respective coupled edges in the plane parallel to the coupled panels;
wherein the female coupling part is provided at the female edge of the first pair of opposite edges;
wherein the male coupling part comprises a tongue (10);
wherein the female coupling part comprises a groove (9) bordered by an upper lip (19) and a lower lip (6);
wherein the lower lip extends more distal than the upper lip;
wherein the lower lip comprises a locking element (8),
wherein the bottom of the tongue comprises a locking element (14),
wherein in coupled condition of two such panels at their first pair of opposite edges, the locking element of the lower lip contacts the locking element of the tongue thereby establishing a locking of the coupled panels at their first pair of opposite edges in the direction perpendicular to the coupled edges and parallel with the surface of the coupled panels;
wherein said locking is established with pretension (para. 0062);
wherein in coupled condition of the male edge with the female edge of another such panel the upper surface of the tongue contacts the bottom of the upper lip (at 4c),
wherein said contact is substantially parallel with the panel surface;
wherein the surface of the male edge is provided with a recess (31a), wherein said recess comprises at least a section parallel with the panel surface (31);
wherein the upper lip comprises a distal portion (refer to Fig. 2b) extending from the panel edge,
wherein the bottom surface (4d) of the distal portion is provided in the substrate,
wherein in coupled condition of the female edge to the male edge of another such panel the distal portion of the upper lip of the female edge at least partially overlaps the recess at the surface of the male edge (refer to Fig. 2b, overlap at 4c);
wherein the overlap between the distal portion and the recess at the surface of the male edge is provided at a vertical distance from the contact between the upper surface of the tongue and the bottom surface of the upper lip (refer to Fig. 3b, reproduced below);
PNG
media_image1.png
214
425
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein in coupled condition of the female edge to the male edge of another such panel, the distal end of the upper lip below said distal portion contacts the male edge of the another such panel over substantially the full surface of the distal end of the upper lip below said distal portion;
wherein the distal portion comprises a first bevel,
wherein said first bevel extends with an angle relative to the surface of the panel between 15° and 45°;
wherein the male edge comprises a second bevel proximal from the recess,
wherein said second bevel extends with an angle relative to the surface of the panel between 15° and 45°.
Wallin does not expressly disclose wherein the décor layer includes a printed film, wherein the bevel extends through the printed film for each bevel.
Wilson discloses a panel having a joint with opposing beveled edges (1007, 1009), wherein the panel includes a printed film (28) and wherein each bevel extends through the printed film (refer to Fig. 7).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to provide a printed film and have each bevel extend through the printed film as suggested by Wilson in the panel of Wallin order to provide pattern, color and style (para. 0032) and to form a channel that may or may not be grouted within the panel joint.
Regarding claim 38:
Wallin discloses wherein said overlap is provided with contact between the bottom of the distal portion and the recess, wherein said contact is provided with pretension (para. 0062).
Regarding claim 39:
Wallin does not expressly discloses wherein the vertical distance between the overlap between the distal portion and the recess at the surface of the male edge and the contact between the upper surface of the tongue and the bottom surface of the upper lip is at least 0.7mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the distance at least 0.7mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). There would be no unexpected or unpredictable result obtained from making the distance a minimum of 0.7mm. There is no evidence that the claimed dimensions not specifically taught by Wallin provide a criticality that would be unachievable and unexpected with a reasonable amount of experimentation.
Regarding claim 40:
Wallin discloses wherein the distal end of the upper lip below the distal portion is substantially perpendicular to the surface of the panel (refer to Fig. 3b).
Regarding claims 41 and 42:
Wallin discloses wherein both bevels may be inclined linear or rounded (Fig. 2b).
Regarding claims 49-51:
Wallin does not expressly disclose the claimed recess width, visible width, nor the distal end of the distal portion extending in the horizontal direction over at least a distance 0,25mm and at least 0.7mm from the female edge.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to alter the dimensions to lie within the claimed range, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). There would be no unexpected or unpredictable result obtained from varying the size ranges. There is no evidence that the claimed dimensions not specifically taught by Wallin provide a criticality that would be unachievable and unexpected with a reasonable amount of experimentation.
Regrading claim 52:
Wallin modified in view of Wilson discloses wherein the recess extends into the substrate.
Regarding claim 53:
Wallin discloses wherein in coupled condition of the female edge to the male edge of another such panel, a gap is provided below the upper lip in a horizontal direction between the distal end of the tongue and the proximal end of the female edge.
Regarding claims 54 and 55:
Wilson discloses the substrate comprises a first layer (32) and a second layer (30, refer to Figs. 7-9), wherein the second layer is provided closer to the surface of the panel than the first layer, wherein the composition of the first layer differs from the composition of the second layer (soft silencing layer of foam and PVC respectively), wherein the tongue is provided in the first layer (it is provided within both layer), wherein the second layer is made out of a more supple material than the first layer (soft foam), wherein the recess extends into the second layer but not into the first layer (refer to Figs. 7-9).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to use the material makeup of the panel of Wilson for the Wallin panel to impart performance characteristics like durability and quietness.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallin, US 2011/0146188 in view of Wilson et al., US 2012/0240502 further in view of Litral, US 2013/0111843.
Regarding claim 37:
Wallin does not, though Litral discloses wherein in coupled condition of a panel with a male edge to a female edge of another such panel, a recess provides a simulation of a grout (20, para. 0026).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to provide simulation grout in the bottom of the channel of Wallin in order to provide a low cost decorative ornamental enhancement.
Claims 43-48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallin, US 2011/0146188 in view of Wilson et al., US 2012/0240502 further in view of Segaert, US 2009/0260313.
Regarding claims 43-47:
Wallin discloses incorporating a lacquer into the panels (claim 16 of Wallin) but does not expressly disclose the details of lacquering the panels.
Segaert discloses floor panels wherein a lacquer layer may be provided on the bevels, the recess, such that in coupled condition of two such panels at their first pair of opposite edges, the lacquer layer of the recess visually continues into the lacquer layer of the bevel of a distal portion (refer to Figs. 5 and 6, showing where lacquer layer 29 may be applied to both the top surface of the panel, the bevel, and the joint.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to provide a lacquer as suggested by Segaert to the panels of Wallin in order to make the panel and joint decoratively colored, moisture-repellent and possibly water-tight (para. 0098).
Regarding claim 48:
Segaert discloses wherein the thickness may be optimized (para. 0113) but does not expressly disclose less than 200 micrometers.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to alter the lacquer thickness to lie within the claimed range, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). There would be no unexpected or unpredictable result obtained from varying the size ranges. There is no evidence that the claimed dimensions not specifically taught by Segaert provide a criticality that would be unachievable and unexpected with a reasonable amount of experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Wallin does not describe any features at the male edge as a recess, the prior art is not required to use the same descriptive language for a structure as the claims in order to teach the structure of the claims. Claim terms are given their broadest, reasonable interpretation. A recess is define by Merriam Webster Online Dictionary as:
PNG
media_image2.png
428
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner has identified feature 31a of Wallin shown in Fig. 2a and 3b amongst others as a recess. The examiner maintains that this structure is a recess because the surface is an indentation from the top surface 31. The surface along the edge is recessed from the top surface of the panel.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Wallin does not refer to any part of the upper lip as a distal portion nor does it describe an overlap, as set forth above, the prior art is not required to use the same language to describe structural features as the instant invention. Claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. The examiner maintains that Wallin discloses a distal portion (the portion that is outermost from the middle of the panel) and an overlap (the panel surfaces overlap each other at 4c in Fig. 2a).
Regarding applicant’s argument that Wallin does not disclose wherein the overlap at the recess occurs at a vertical distance from the contact between the tongue and the bottom of the upper lip, the examiner has identified this vertical distance below:
PNG
media_image3.png
183
449
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding applicant’s argument that Wilson “teaches only that a printed film layer may be position below or direction below a wear layer”, this is what Wilson is being relied upon to teach. Claim 36 recites “wherein the décor layer includes a printed film, wherein the bevel extends through the printed film for each bevel”. Wilson discloses a panel having a joint with opposing beveled edges (1007, 1009), wherein the panel includes a printed film (28) and wherein each bevel extends through the printed film (refer to Figs. 7-9). The bevel extends into layer 30 which is below print film 28, such that the bevel extends through the printed film for each bevel. The makeup of the panel is shown in detail in Fig. 4. The layer is not labeled in Figs. 7-9 but this does not preclude it from being located between layers 26 and 30 as shown in the detail of Fig. 4.
Regarding the term “bevel” being absent from Wilson, the examiner emphasizes that the prior art is not required to use the exact same language as the instant disclosure in order to disclose claim features. Further, para. 0041 of Wilson describes the edges as “beveled”. The edges may be straight bevels or curved as shown in Figs. 7-9.
Applicant misrepresents the differences between the edges of Figs. 7-9 and 10-11. Wilson describes the beveled edge of Fig. 10 as “defin[ing] the grouting channel according to another embodiment” suggesting interchangeability between beveled edges and curved edges.
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 BRENT W HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-3661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6:00p MT.
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, 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.
/BRENT W HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633