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 .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11 under Hicks have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hicks (US 2016/0031135) in view of Wang (US 12,264,256) and Hicks (US 2016/0031135) in view of Wang (US 12,264,256) Bastian II (US 11,198,537).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks (US 2016/0031135) in view of Wang (US 12,264,256).
Regarding claim 1, Hicks discloses a floor tile arranged for use as a construction element for the manufacture of a field, (Table 1)
the floor tile comprising a main face configured to be oriented upwards after the manufacture of the field and configured to be visible to users of the field, (Fig 1), (Par 0100),
wherein the floor tile is a plastic floor tile and on the main face is provided with a graphic layer 4 which is arranged to provide marking lines, logos, graphics or coloring of the floor tile, (Fig 1), (Par 0100) the graphic layer 4 comprising Ultra Violet UV ink (Par 0100), as well as a protective coating 6 applied to the graphic layer, the protective coating 4 comprising a two-component polyurethane coating (PU/acrylate hybrid), (Par 0100),
wherein the main face has been pre-treated by a corona treatment 3 (Fig 1-3), (Par 0100).
Hicks discloses the protective coating comprising a two-component polyurethane coating, but does not disclose the protective coating is provided with nonskid material. However, Wang discloses a coating having nonskid properties comprising polyurethane and sand (Col 4, Lines 30-38, Col 10, Lines 44-57). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floor tile of Hicks to include a nonskid material as taught by Wang, in order to provide a coating with nonskid properties. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Hicks discloses a base coating 5 is included between the graphic layer 4 and the protective coating 6 (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, Hicks discloses a white underlayer 2 is included between the graphic layer 4 and the main face of the floor tile (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 4, Hicks discloses wherein between the graphic layer 4 and the main face of the floor tile an adhesive layer 2 is included for improving the adhesion of the graphic layer 4 to the main face of the floor tile (Fig 1), (Par 0101). Examiner notes that layer 2 is a PU resin that assists bonding having adhesive properties in the same manner than Applicant’s adhesive layer is the same than the white layer as disclosed in Par 0024.
Regarding claim 5, Hicks discloses the protective coating 6 comprises a two-component polyurethane acrylate coating which is water-borne (Par 0100).
Regarding claim 6, Hicks discloses the floor tile comprises polypropylene and/or polyethylene (Par 0087).
Regarding claim 7, Hicks discloses the floor tile comprises color, but does not disclose masterbatch has been added to the plastic material of the floor tile. However, it would have been an obvious design choice to add masterbatch to the plastic material according to the desired ornamental appearance of the floor tile.
Regarding claim 8, Hicks discloses the floor tile is provided with a surface profile (textures and patterns) on the main face for providing grip for the users of the field (Par 0100).
6. Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Hicks (US 2016/0031135) in view of Wang (US 12,264,256) and further in view of Masanek Jr. (US 2013/0111836).
Regarding claim 9, Hicks modified by Wang discloses as discussed in claim 1, but does not disclose the floor tile comprises an at least partly open structure on the main face for providing water permeability of the floor tile. However, Masanek Jr. discloses a floor tile having an at least partly open structure 2402 on the main face, (Fig 24). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floor tile of Hicks to include an at least partly open structure as taught by Masanek Jr, in order to provide drainage points. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Hicks modified by Wang discloses as discussed in claim 1, but does not disclose one or more fastening elements, which fastening elements are arranged to attach the floor tile to one or more further floor tiles, wherein the one or more fastening elements are provided with interlocking parts or deformable material for allowing the floor tile to expand and contract with temperature variations. However, Masanek Jr. discloses a floor tile 2301 including fastening elements 206, 208 are arranged to attach the floor tile to one or more further floor tiles, wherein the fastening elements are provided with interlocking parts (Fig 23). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floor tile of Hicks to include an at least partly open structure as taught by Masanek Jr, in order to provide floor tiles that can be connected to adjacent floor tiles. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claim(s) 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks (US 2016/0031135) in view of Wang (US 12,264,256) and further in view of Bastian II (US 11,198,537).
Regarding claim 11, Hicks discloses a method for manufacturing a floor tile for use as a construction element for manufacturing a field such as a sports or playing field, the method comprising the steps of:
manufacturing the floor tile from a plastic material, wherein the floor tile is manufactured using injection molding technology (Par 0075);
treating a main face which is oriented upwards after manufacture of the field and is visible to users of the field with a corona treatment 3 (Fig 1-3);
applying an adhesive layer 2 to a main face which is oriented upwards after manufacture of the field and is visible to users of the field; (Fig 1), (Par 0101). Examiner notes that layer 2 is a PU resin that assists bonding having adhesive properties in the same manner than Applicant’s adhesive layer is the same than the white layer as disclosed in Par 0024.
applying to the adhesive layer a graphic layer 4 which is arranged to provide marking lines, logos, graphics or coloring to the floor tile, and comprising UV ink (Fig 1), (Par 0100);
applying a protective coating 6 to the graphic layer 4, (PU/acrylate hybrid), (P 0100, 0103);
wherein the adhesive layer is a plastic adhesive layer, the graphics layer is applied using a flatbed printer (P0076), and
wherein the protective coating 6 comprises a two-component polyurethane coating which is water-borne (Par 0100).
Hicks discloses the protective coating, but does not disclose the protective coating is provided with nonskid material. However, Wang discloses a coating having nonskid properties comprising polyurethane and sand (Col 4, Lines 30-38, Col 10, Lines 44-57). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floor tile of Hicks to include a nonskid material as taught by Wang, in order to provide a coating with nonskid properties. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Hicks discloses the flatbed printer, but does not disclose the flatbed printer is a Light Emitting Diode (LED), Ultra Violet (UV) flatbed printer. However, Bastian discloses a technique to print images using a Light Emitting Diode (LED), Ultra Violet (UV) flatbed printer (Col 9, Lines 11-20). All the claimed elements were known in the prior art as evidenced above, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the flatbed printer of Hicks for the flatbed printer of Bastian II, using known methods with no change in their respective functions and it would allow for rapid curing of the graphic layer. Such a combination or substitution would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected.
Regarding claim 12, Hicks discloses a single layer 2 applied prior to the application of the graphic layer that provides the adhesive properties and the white color, but does not disclose a white underlayer is applied to the adhesive layer prior to the application of the graphic layer. However, it would have been an obvious engineering design to have two layers that provide the adhesive properties and the white color instead of the single layer of Hicks according to the desired properties of the floor tile.
Regarding claim 13, Hicks discloses wherein a base coat 5 is applied to the graphic layer 4 before applying the protective coating 6 (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 14, Hicks discloses wherein the steps of applying the adhesive layer, the graphic layer and the protective coating are performed by a single machine (Fig 14A-14C).
Regarding claim 15, Hicks discloses the floor tile comprises polypropylene and/or polyethylene (Par 0087).
Regarding claim 16, Hicks discloses the floor tile comprises color, but does not disclose masterbatch has been added to the plastic material of the floor tile. However, it would have been an obvious design choice to add masterbatch to the plastic material according to the desired ornamental appearance of the floor tile.
Regarding claim 17, Hicks discloses the plastic material comprises both virgin plastic material and recycled plastic material (Par 0083).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIANA FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-8281. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5PM MONDAY-FRIDAY.
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.
/ADRIANA FIGUEROA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
03/17/2026