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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-17, 19-21, and 23-25 are currently pending.
Claims 17, 19-21, and 23-24 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 3, 5, 8, 18, and 22 are canceled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-16, and 25 in the reply filed on 05/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17, 19-21, and 23-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 05/01/2026.
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) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-16, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odum et al. (US 2018/0163413 A1) in view of Zhang (US 2003/0084995 A1) and in further view of Ogawa et al. (JP 2008/055658 A; machine translation).
Regarding claim 1-2, 6-7, 9-12, 14, and 25,
Odum teaches a flooring product such as a plank (an exterior composite board), comprising: a backing portion (102, a core) composed of a polymeric resin such as polyethylene (PE, such as LLDPE), polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), or thermoplastic elastomers (TPE) and a filler composed of a mineral filler such as mica, talc, clay, carbon black, glass fibers, silica, aluminum oxide, calcium carbonate, diatomaceous earth, fumed silica, feldspar, and others overlapping with the claims (it is noted that the claimed organic filler is optional); a tie layer(s) (106) that may be placed between any two layers of dissimilar compositions and thus one of ordinary skill in the would recognize that the tie layer(s) may be disposed on at least one surface of the core layer comprising a cured polymeric resin such as an acrylic or an urethane polymer coating composition; a primer layer may be disposed on one or more opposing layers of the tie layer and may be used to position the tie layer between dissimilar materials, therefore, as one of the boundaries of the tie layer is next to an ink layer (a color layer) it may be considered to be disposed between said color layer and said tie layer; and a decorative portion (104) comprising an ink layer (204b, a color layer), disposed on a primer layer and/or the tie layer, which the color layer comprises UV-cured polymeric resins such as acrylates in addition to pigments, such as Durst 30 DM which is a UV-curing ink that has a black color (see the attached Durst 30 DM ink data sheet); and a wear layer (108, a protective layer) (Odum: abstract; par. 0037, 0049, 0052-0053, 0072-0081, 0092, 0111-0112).
Odum is silent towards the tie layer being opaque. However, Odum does teach the tie layer has the disclosed and claimed structure, such as overlapping thicknesses and a cured composition that matches the claimed and disclosed acrylic and polyurethane options in Applicant’s specification (Odum: par. 0072-0081 and Applicant’s PGpub: par. 0043). As the tie layer of Odum teaches the same structure and composition, it would be expected to also have the same properties such as being opaque to the claimed degree of 90-100%. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Odum does not explicitly teach wherein the primer layer being a cured polymeric resin being an acrylic or urethane polymeric resin.
Zhang teaches a primer composition for promoting adhesion between a urethane adhesive to a polymeric substrate (Zhang: abstract). Zhang further teaches the primer composition may be an acrylic resin that is cured and improvers adhesion between a polyurethane adhesive (corresponds to the tie layer of Odum) and a polymeric substrate (corresponds to the core of Odum) (Zhang: par. 0004 and 0039).
Odum and Zhang are in the corresponding field of primer layers for use between polyurethane adhesives and polymeric substrates with the desire to improve adhesion of dissimilar materials. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a cured polymeric resin composed of an acrylate as the composition of the primer of Odum to provide improved adhesion between the tie layer and the core of Odum as taught by Zhang.
Odum is silent towards the pigments in the ink layer being explicitly inorganic.
Ogawa teaches a flooring decorative material comprising a pattern layer comprising an ink that utilizes inorganic pigments for improved weather resistance (Ogawa: abstract; par. 0029-0030).
Odum and Ogawa are in the corresponding field of decorative flooring composites composed of a decorative layer comprising pigments. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize inorganic pigments as the pigments in Odum to provide improved weather resistance as taught by Ogawa.
Odum, Zhang, and Ogawa are silent towards the adhesive value between the tie layer and at least one surface of the cure upon which the tie layer is disposed has less than about 5% of material removed according to the Cross-Cut Tie Layer Tape Test. However, Odum and Zhang teach the claimed opaque tie layer structure and composition, the primer between the tie layer and the core, structure and composition, and the core composition. Thus, it would be expected to exhibit the same results when tested in the claimed manner. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 4,
Odum, Zhang, and Ogawa teaches the exterior composite board required by claim 1. As the organic filler recited in claim 1 is optional, claim 4 reciting the specific organic filler is also optional.
Regarding claim 13,
Odum, Zhang, and Ogawa teaches the exterior composite board required by claim 1. Odum, Zhang, and Ogawa are silent towards the CIELAB Delta E of the exterior composite board is less than 5 units when tested over 10,000 hours under QUV Weathering Test. However, However, Odum, Zhang, and Ogawa teach the claimed the claimed and disclosed structure and composition for the core, opaque tie layer, the ink layer, the primer layer, and the protective layer. Thus, it would be expected to exhibit the same results when tested in the claimed manner. When the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the prior art products necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 15,
Odum, Zhang, and Ogawa teaches the exterior composite board required by claim 1. Odum is silent towards the period of time prior to the application of the opaque tie layer, at least one surface of the core has a surface modification such that it has a higher energy than the same surface of the core without the surface modification.
However, Applicant’s specification teaches etching (forming an uneven surface) is a suitable surface modification in which Odum teaches all the layers may be embossed, which would also yield an uneven surface and would thus have a higher surface energy compared to a flat or unmodified surface (Odum: par. 0131 and Applicant’s PGpub: par. 0081).
The limitations requiring “a period of time prior to the application of the opaque tie layer” is a product by process limitation. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section 103 is proper. See MPEP 2113. In this case, there appears to be no structural difference form the claimed structure and the structure disclosed by Odum, Zhang, and Ogawa.
Regarding claim 16,
Odum, Zhang, and Ogawa teaches the exterior composite board required by claim 1. As Odum teaches the exterior composite may be for resilient flooring that may be in the shape of a plank (Odum: par. 0037), there appears to be no structural difference and is fully capable of being utilized in a deck. That is, the limitation requiring the board to be used in a deck, is intended use of the claimed board.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Travis M Figg whose telephone number is (571)272-9849. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 D. 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.
/TRAVIS M FIGG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights