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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 09/09/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/09/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2023 is considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 through 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4 and 5, in line 2, the phrase “a veneer layer adhered to two surfaces of a waterproof core” in claim 1 and additional use of the phrase “the veneer layer” in claims 1, 3, 4 and 5 are indefinite. It is not clear if the phrase “the veneer layer” is referring back to one veneer layer or both veneer layers of the phrase “a veneer layer adhered to two surfaces of a waterproof core” as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, the limitation in lines 6-7 of claim 1 reciting “a first waterproof adhesive layer bonding the veneer layer to the surfaces of the waterproof core” and the limitation of claim reciting “further comprises a second waterproof adhesive layer bonding the veneer layer to at least one of the surfaces of the waterproof core” are indefinite. Lines 2-5 of claim 1 recite “a veneer layer adhered to two surfaces of a waterproof core…”, wherein the limitation is taken to mean that two different veneer layers are present.
Lines 6-7 of claim 1 then recites “ a first waterproof adhesive bonding the veneer layer to the surfaces of the waterproof core”. While the phrase “the veneer layer” is singular, the phase “the surfaces” is plural, which implies that the first waterproof adhesive present on both surface of the waterproof core to bond the “veneer layer adhered to two surfaces of a waterproof core”. However, this is not entirely clear.
Dependent claim 3 recites “further comprises a second waterproof adhesive layer bonding the veneer layer to at least one of the surfaces of the waterproof core”, which would imply that there is not a first waterproof adhesive present between one of the “veneer layers adhered to two surfaces of a waterproof core” recited by claim 1.
Therefore, for the reasons presented above, the structure of the claimed engineered waterproof plank in claim 1 and claim 3 are indefinite.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation reciting “further comprising at least one layer selected from the group consisting of cork, rubber, foam, and waterproof balance paper” is indefinite. It is not clear if there is an additional layer being claimed to the apparent two veneer layers or if claim 2 is intending to refer to the second veneer layer. The instant specification does not aid in clarification as the figures simply show a top layer/veneer layer/bonding layer on either side of a core layer in Figure 2, and do not show an additional layer that satisfies “further comprising at least one layer selected from the group consisting of cork, rubber, foam, and waterproof balance paper”.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “further comprising a cover layer over the veneer layer” is indefinite as it is unclear if the claimed cover layer is present over only one veneer layer or both veneer layers of the “a veneer layer adhered to two surfaces of a waterproof core” recited by claim 1
Claims 2 and 6-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph based on their dependency from the rejected claims above.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dossche et al. (US 2015/0337543, now US 9,234,357).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8, Dossche et al. teaches an engineered waterproof plastic composite flooring (Figure 2; 10; engineered waterproof plank) comprising a core layer (30; waterproof core) comprised of raw or unprocessed bamboo dust, cork dust, wood dust or mixtures thereof and high density polyethylene, or alternatively, virgin or recycled PVC, wherein the composite material is extruded to desired dimension (Figure 2; [0016]). The engineered waterproof plastic composite flooring (Figure 2; engineered waterproof plank) further comprises a wear layer (20; veneer layer) of tile/stone veneers, rubber, decorative plastic, decorative vinyl, linoleum or encapsulated vinyl/resin to render the layer waterproof and wear resistant adhered to a surface of the core layer (30; waterproof core) via a hot melt, water resistant adhesive (22; first waterproof adhesive layer) ([0015-0020]). An underlayment layer (40; veneer layer/at least one layer) is adhered to an opposing surface of the core layer (30; waterproof core) from the wear layer (20; veneer layer) by a hot melt, water resistant adhesive (41; second waterproof adhesive layer), wherein the underlayment layer (40; veneer layer) is comprised of a waterproof or water resistant material such as cork, rubber, foam or waterproof balancing paper ([0017-0021]).
Dossche et al. further teaches that the lateral edges of the engineered waterproof plastic composite flooring (Figure 2; 10; engineered waterproof plank) comprise a grooved end (50) with profile (51) and channel (52) that matches with protruding end (60) having profile (61) and protrusion (62) of the click-lock variety shown in Figures 3a-d ([0018, 0022]).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Dossche et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that a top layer (21; cover layer) is provided over the wear layer (20; veneer layer), wherein the top layer (21; cover layer) is comprised of melamine resin with aluminum oxide and polyurethane, providing transparency, hardness and scratch resistance to the engineered waterproof plastic composite flooring (Figure 2; 10; engineered waterproof plank) ([0019]).
Regarding claim 7, Dossche et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the engineered waterproof plastic composite flooring (Figure 2; 10; engineered waterproof plank) exhibits variations due to moisture of less than 0.01% ([0024]).
Regarding claim 9, Dossche et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that calcium carbonate can be added as a filler to the core layer (30; waterproof core) ([0016]).
Regarding claim 11, Dossche et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the core layer (30; waterproof core) can include up to about 10% of chemical additives including anti-UV agents, anti-oxidation agents, stabilizers, colorants, anti-fungus agents, coupling agents, reinforcing agents and lubricants ([0016]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dossche et al. (US 2015/0337543, now US 9,234,357).
Regarding claim 10, Dossche et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As previously described, Dossche et al. teaches a core layer (30; waterproof core) that is comprised of raw or unprocessed bamboo dust, cork dust, wood dust or mixtures thereof and high density polyethylene, or alternatively, virgin or recycled PVC, wherein the composite material is extruded to desired dimension, and up to 10% chemical additives (Figure 2; [0016]).
While the reference does not expressly teach that the core layer (30; waterproof core) is comprised of about 55% of dust selected from the group consisting of wood, bamboo, cord and combination of two or more; and of about 20% of plastic selected from the group consisting of high density polyethylene and PVC, such modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Dossche et al., as stated above, teaches the same components for the core layer (30; waterproof core) as the instant application. Dossche et al. further teaches that addition of greater amounts of wood or bamboo dust provides greater rigidity to the resulting planks and core dust retains some resilience even in the plastic mixture ([0016]).
Therefore, it is within the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the percentage of dust, especially wood or bamboo, and the percentage of high density polyethylene or PVC within the core layer (30; waterproof core) based on the desired properties, including falling with in the ranges recited by the instant claims as Dossche et al. teaches that higher percentages of dust provides greater rigidity to the resulting planks. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the composition of the core layer (30; waterproof core) based upon the desired rigidity based on the teaches of Dossche et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
De Rick (US 2023/0183987) teaches floor coverings with decorative upper and lower surfaces, as well as click and lock couplings (Figure 1-10, [0010-0036, 0087-0121]).
Schacht et al. (US 2011/0268937) teaches a coated panel that is waterproof and having a printed motif thereon (Figure 1-7, [0011-0020, 0023-0032, 0037, 0054-0071, 0083-0099]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA POWERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
LAURA POWERS
Examiner
Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785