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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 17, 2026 has been entered.
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, 4-6, 8-10, 12-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Keyzer (US 2021/0230883 A1).
With respect to claim 1, De Keyzer teaches a system comprising a liner layer having a first side and an opposing second side – element 301 or 302 (0194, Fig. 4), a first compression deflection padding layer having a first side, adhered to the second side of the liner layer, and an opposing second side – element 303 – the co-foamable layer functions as the compression layer (0194, Fig. 4), a second compression deflection padding layer having a first side, adhered to the second side of the first compression deflection padding layer, and an opposing second side – element 305 is also foam, thus, it functions as the second compression deflection padding layer (0194, Fig. 4), and a flooring layer having a first side, adhered to the second side of the second compression deflection padding layer, and an opposing second side – element 306 – the wear layer functions as the flooring layer and is the topmost layer of the laminate flooring (0197, Fig. 4). The Examiner notes that the configuration and order of the layers as specified in the rejection above is identical to that of the instant application (Fig. 1).
Regarding the first compression deflection padding layer having a 25% compression deflection force greater than a 25% compression deflection force of the second compression deflection padding layer and the first compression deflection padding layer having a density greater than a density of the second compression deflection padding layer, the Examiner notes that the claims recite properties directed to the materials of the layers and the instant specification provides only exemplary materials not specifically identified. Paragraphs [0038] and [0039] describe the compression deflection padding layers such that “they may include Skandia SKIV3” or “Skandia SKIV1.” There are no polymers or specific foam materials listed for either the first or second compression layers. It is the Examiner’s position that because the prior art teaches two co-foamed layers made with PVC, vinyl materials (gelled or froth), or plastisol, wherein the foamed layers may be mechanically or chemically co-foamed (De Keyzer, 0033), these foam materials would be expected to exhibit the property of the compression deflection force and densities as claimed, unless Applicant can show a structural and chemical distinction between the instant application materials and that of the prior art.
Regarding the first compression deflection padding layer having a 25% compression deflection force equal or greater than 9.0 psi and less than or equal to 13.0 psi, and a density equal to or greater than 7.0 pounds per cubic foot and less than or equal to 9.5 pounds per cubic foot, the second compression deflection padding layer having a 25% compression deflection force equal to or greater than 2.0 psi and less than or equal to 5.0 psi, and having a density equal to or greater than 3.0 pounds per cubic foot and less than or equal to 5.5 pounds per cubic foot, the claim recites properties directed to the materials of the layers, the claim recites properties directed to the materials of the layers. The properties include the compression deflection force, the density of the padding layer(s). The instant specification provides only exemplary materials not specifically identified. Paragraphs [0038] and [0039] describe the compression deflection padding layers such that “they may include Skandia SKIV3” or “Skandia SKIV1.” There are no polymers or specific foam materials listed for either the first or second compression layers. It is the Examiner’s position that because the prior art teaches two co-foamed layers made with PVC, vinyl materials (gelled or froth), or plastisol, wherein the foamed layers may be mechanically or chemically co-foamed (De Keyzer, 0033), these foam materials would be expected to exhibit the properties and densities as claimed, unless Applicant can show a structural and chemical distinction between the instant application materials and that of the prior art.
The recitation “for providing impact absorption on an interior surface of an aircraft performing parabolic flight maneuvers” and “wherein the system is secured to an interior surface of an aircraft” are recitations of intended use, which do not provide structural distinction to the claims, and fail to add any additional significance to the limitations in the body of the claim. Since De Keyzer discloses the elements of the system, De Keyzer teaches a flooring system with the same structure as claimed, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the system according to the reference is capable to perform as intended.
Regarding claim 4, De Keyzer teaches the system of claim 1. De Keyzer teaches that the liner layer has a thickness of less than 0.35 mm (0043), which encompasses the claimed range, and thus, renders the range obvious.
As to claims 5, 8-9, 12-15, and 18, De Keyzer teaches the system of claim 1. The Examiner notes that the claims recite properties directed to the materials of the layers. The properties include the compression deflection force, the density of the padding layer(s), and the compression deflection force of the padding layer(s) claimed relative to one another. The instant specification provides only exemplary materials not specifically identified. Paragraphs [0038] and [0039] describe the compression deflection padding layers such that “they may include Skandia SKIV3” or “Skandia SKIV1.” There are no polymers or specific foam materials listed for either the first or second compression layers. It is the Examiner’s position that because the prior art teaches two co-foamed layers made with PVC, vinyl materials (gelled or froth), or plastisol, wherein the foamed layers may be mechanically or chemically co-foamed (De Keyzer, 0033), these foam materials would be expected to exhibit the properties and densities as claimed, unless Applicant can show a structural and chemical distinction between the instant application materials and that of the prior art.
Specifically with respect to claims 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15, the subject matter of the claims is the same as the subject matter of claim 1. Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claims 8, 9, 12-15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
With respect to claims 6 and 10, De Keyzer teaches the system of claim 1. De Keyzer teaches closed cell foam layers for the first and second compression layers (0194-0195), since such layers may be PVC or plastisol.
Regarding claim 16, De Keyzer teaches the system of claim 1. The flooring layer of De Keyzer comprises PVC (0249, Table 6).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Keyzer, in view of Johnson (US 2002/011728 A1).
De Keyzer teaches the system of claim 1. De Keyzer teaches that the liner layer – the backing layer – comprises a woven glass cloth (0034), but De Keyzer fails to teach that the cloth is coated with a phenolic resin.
Johnson teaches use of resins such as phenolic resins for strengthening layers in products such as laminate flooring (0003, 0005). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a phenolic resin in the woven cloth liner layer of De Keyzer since Johnson teaches that phenolic resins may be added for strengthening layers of flooring laminates.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Keyzer, in view of Johnson, and further in view of Ford (US 2015/0047282 A1).
De Keyzer and Johnson teach the system of claim 2. De Keyzer teaches that many materials may be used or added to the layer (0034), and teaches that a PVC layer may be used or a laminate foil, but De Keyzer fails to teach or suggest that the liner layer further comprises a polyvinyl fluoride film secured to the woven cloth.
Ford teaches the PVC and polyvinyl fluoride may be used interchangeably in flooring underlayments (claim 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the PVC of De Keyzer with polyvinyl fluoride of Ford, as both are interchangeable in flooring.
Claim(s) 7, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Keyzer, in view of Nakamoto (US 2020/0032023 A1).
With respect to claims 7, 11, and 17. De Keyzer teaches the system of claim 1. De Keyzer teaches the features as discussed above but is silent regarding the specific thicknesses of the compression deflection padding layers and the flooring layer. Nakamoto teaches resin foamed articles and their uses, wherein the resin shaped article comprises multiple layers and may be used in flooring applications to include those in vehicles and aircraft (0236). The thickness of the foam layers in the laminate and the top surface layer may be adjusted and optimized depending on the use, the performance desired and the rigidity needed (0117, 0121). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thicknesses in the foam and wear layers of De Keyzer as taught by Nakamoto for the purpose of optimizing such thicknesses based on the desired performance.
Claim(s) 20 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Keyzer, in view of Manning (US 5482755), Ford, Johnson, and further in view of Nakamoto as noted above.
De Keyzer teaches a system comprising an inner layer having a first side and an opposing second side – element 301 (0194, Fig. 4), a first compression deflection padding layer having a first side, adhered to the second side of the liner layer, and an opposing second side – element 303 – co-foamable layer functions as the compression layer (0194, Fig. 4), a second compression deflection padding layer having a first side, adhered to the second side of the first compression deflection padding layer, and an opposing second side – element 305 (0194, Fig. 4), and a flooring layer having a first side, adhered to the second side of the second compression deflection padding layer, and an opposing second side – element 306 – the wear layer functions as the flooring layer and is the topmost layer of the laminate flooring (0197, Fig. 4). The Examiner notes that the configuration and order of the layers as noted in the rejection above is identical to that of the instant application (Fig. 1 of the specification).
De Keyzer teaches closed cell foam layers for the first and second compression layers, respectively, since such layers may be PVC or plastisol (0194, 0195, 0199). De Keyzer discloses the flooring layer comprising PVC (0249. Table 6).
De Keyzer teaches that the liner layer has a thickness of less than 0.35 mm, which encompasses the claimed range (0043), and thus, renders the claimed range obvious.
The Examiner notes that the claim recites properties directed to the materials of the layers. The properties include the compression deflection force, the density of the padding layer(s). The instant specification provides only exemplary materials not specifically identified. Paragraphs [0038] and [0039] describe the compression deflection padding layers such that “they may include Skandia SKIV3” or “Skandia SKIV1.” There are no polymers or specific foam materials listed for either the first or second compression layers. It is the Examiner’s position that because the prior art teaches two co-foamed layers made with PVC, vinyl materials (gelled or froth), or plastisol, wherein the foamed layers may be mechanically or chemically co-foamed (De Keyzer, 0033), these foam materials would be expected to exhibit the properties and densities as claimed, unless Applicant can show a structural and chemical distinction between the instant application materials and that of the prior art.
Regarding the presence of a fastener, while De Keyzer does not specifically teach the presence of a fastener secured to the first side of the liner layer and adapted to removably secure to a corresponding fastener affixed to the interior surface, De Keyzer does teach that the composite panel may be applied as a top layer and adhere to a base panel (0361). The base panel may comprise interlocking means for joining adjacent wall or flooring panels (0366), and thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that a fastener would be present in order to adhere the panels to the base and to other adjacent panels. The Examiner notes while the interlocking means are identified for the edges, the reference appreciated that the laminate may be adhered to the base panel. The base panel may be wood-based, particle board, foamed, etc. (0363, 0365). Thus, it is the Examiner’s position that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to not only provide interlocking means on the edges but in the first side of the liner layer to adhere it to corresponding fastener(s) on the interior surface.
Manning teaches flooring system, wherein a covering comprises three layers – an interior layer – element 7, a foam layer – element 8, and a dimensionally stable layer 9 (col. 3, lines 50-60). The covering is adhered to a surface to be covered via fastening means such as hook and loop fasteners (Figs. 1 and 2). The fastener or loop elements is on the covering while the corresponding hook is disposed on the base layer – element 1 (col. 3, lines 55-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the specific hook and loop fastener in the system of De Keyzer in order to connect or adhere the covering of De Keyzer to the base panel.
De Keyzer teaches that the liner layer – the backing layer – comprises a woven cloth (0034), but is silent regarding the cloth being coated with a phenolic resin. Johnson teaches uses of resins such as phenolic resins for strengthening layers in products such as laminate flooring (0003, 0005). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate phenolic resin in the woven cloth liner layer of De Keyzer as phenolic resins may be added for strengthening a base layer or a laminate.
De Keyzer teaches that many materials may be added to the base layer (0034), and teaches that a PVC layer may be used or a laminate foil, however, the reference fails to teach that the liner layer further comprises a polyvinyl fluoride film secured to the woven cloth. Ford teaches that PVC and polyvinyl fluoride may be used interchangeably in flooring underlayments (claim 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute PVC of De Keyzer with polyvinyl fluoride as both are interchangeable in flooring.
De Keyzer is silent regarding the specific thicknesses of the compression deflection padding layers and the flooring layer. Nakamoto teaches resin foamed articles, wherein a resin foamed article comprises multiple layers and may be used in flooring applications to include those in vehicles and aircraft (0236). The thicknesses of the foam layers in the laminate and the top surface layer may be adjusted and optimized depending on the use, a desired performance and needed rigidity (0117, 0121). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thicknesses of the foam and wear layers of De Keyzer as taught by Nakamoto in order to optimize the thicknesses based on a desired performance.
Regarding the first compression deflection padding layer having a 25% compression deflection force greater than a 25% compression deflection force of the second compression deflection padding layer and the first compression deflection padding layer having a density greater than a density of the second compression deflection padding layer, the Examiner notes that the claims recite properties directed to the materials of the layers and the instant specification provides only exemplary materials not specifically identified. Paragraphs [0038] and [0039] describe the compression deflection padding layers such that “they may include Skandia SKIV3” or “Skandia SKIV1.” There are no polymers or specific foam materials listed for either the first or second compression layers. It is the Examiner’s position that because the prior art teaches two co-foamed layers made with PVC, vinyl materials (gelled or froth), or plastisol, wherein the foamed layers may be mechanically or chemically co-foamed (De Keyzer, 0033), these foam materials would be expected to exhibit the property of the compression deflection force and densities as claimed, unless Applicant can show a structural and chemical distinction between the instant application materials and that of the prior art.
The recitations “for providing impact absorption on an interior surface of an aircraft performing parabolic flight maneuvers” and “wherein the system is secured to the interior surface of the aircraft” are interpreted as recitations of intended use, which do not provide structural distinction to the claims, and fail to add any additional significance to the limitations in the body of the claim. Since the references disclose the elements of the system, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the system according to the references is capable to perform as intended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 17, 2026 have been fully considered.
The Applicant has argued that De Keyzer does not teach or suggest the specific compression deflection force values or density values as recited in the amended claim 1. The Applicant argued that the specific numerical ranges recited presently in claim 1 are not disclosed or suggested in De Keyzel.
The Examiner notes claims 1 and 20 recite properties directed to the materials of the layers and the instant specification provides only exemplary materials not specifically identified. Paragraphs [0038] and [0039] describe the compression deflection padding layers such that “they may include Skandia SKIV3” or “Skandia SKIV1.” There are no polymers or specific foam materials listed for either the first or second compression layers. It is the Examiner’s position that because the prior art teaches two co-foamed layers made with PVC, vinyl materials (gelled or froth), or plastisol, wherein the foamed layers may be mechanically or chemically co-foamed (De Keyzer, 0033), these foam materials would be expected to exhibit the properties of the compression deflection force and densities as claimed, unless Applicant can show a structural and chemical distinction between the instant application materials and that of the prior art.
The Applicant argued that the specific ranges recited in claims 1 and 20 are critical because the interaction with the combination of the higher compression padding layer and the lower compression padding layer allows for the energy of the passenger landing on the floor to be adequately absorbed. However, no specific experimental data including comparative examples were provided. The Applicant referred to par. [0042] of the instant specification which discusses the Head Injury Criterion value of the absorbing material of the instant invention as compared to a padding that does not include both a higher compression deflection padding layer and a lower compression deflection padding layer, arguing that the specific claimed ranges provide unexpected results that are not inherent to any generic foam material. However, no specific data were provided with respect to the specific deflection force and density of the first compression deflection padding layer and the second compression deflection padding layer. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to claim 20, the Applicant reiterated that the specific combination of compression deflection force and density ranges provides an unexpected result in significantly reducing the Head Injury Criterion value and the probability of serious injury, as discussed with respect to claim 20. The Examiner notes that to show unexpected results applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range of a characteristic (MPEP 716.02(d)II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights