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 .
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 1-29 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.
Claim 1 recites “imparting additional surface area” which is not clear as to how an additional surface area may be imparted. The “addition” is not known. The claim will be examined as best understood.
Claims 2-29 are rejected for depending from claim 1.
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) 1-22 and 25-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. US 2019/0126595 to Chen et al. in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2009/0041987 to Schitter.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Chen discloses an assembly with an upper surface (fig. 2: 10, 12, 14, 18) with a top having an embossed texture [0036], an acoustical section [0023] (20) secured to the bottom of the upper surface by an adhesive layer [0046], the acoustical layer having a cell structure with a closed cell honeycomb structure [0048]. However, a locking system with first and second coupling parts is not disclosed. Schitter discloses a panel assembly with first and second locking parts being tongue and grooves with upper tongue with first upper groove receiver positioned adjacent a second upper groove receiver (see marked figure of Schitter below) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen by adding such structure in order to connect a plurality of components where a larger surface is needed. Regarding embossing depth, Chen discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific dimensions of embossing as in this claim. Applicant fails to show criticality for specifically claimed dimensions, therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims as a mere design choice as deeper embossing provides better grip for applications needing such grip, or less for applications needing less.
PNG
media_image1.png
506
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the upper surface is a polymeric rigid core (18 [0037], [0038]).
Regarding claim 3, PVC is disclosed for the backing layer ([0038] – [[0040]).
Regarding the new limitation of imparting additional surface areas for an adhesive, this is a functional limitation and the structure of Chen in view of Schitter may impart additional surface for an adhesive if the surface becomes bent, for example, to expand its available surface, or the connecting portion may include more areas to add an adhesive.
Regarding claims 4-10, 12-14, 16 and 17, Chien in view of Schitter discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific dimensions of materials such as thicknesses, weights, densities, particle sizes. Applicant fails to show criticality for specifically claimed dimensions, therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chien in view of Schitter to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims as this would have been an obvious design choice for particular applications which may require a stronger or weaker product, a more costly or less costly product, etc.
Regarding claim 11, the PVC resin is not explicitly disclosed as a suspension grade resin. However, the Applicant should note that this is a type of polymer produced by suspension polymerization of vinyl chloride monomer. This is a means of making and the claims are drawn to the final product. As this type of material is widely used in construction, automotive and medical industries, this would have been obvious at the time of filing to use this particular method of making the PVC.
Regarding claim 15, the upper section has a rigid core layer as recited in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, the first coupling part has a protrusion extending over the second upper groove receiver (see marked figure).
Regarding claim 19, the second coupling part includes a lower tongue, a first lower groove receiver, a second lower groove receiver and a protrusion receiver (see marked figure)
Regarding claims 20-22, Chen discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific dimensions of adhesive application rates and acoustical layer thicknesses. Applicant fails to show criticality for specifically claimed dimensions, therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims as an obvious design choice where acoustic resistance is more needed, or less needed depending upon the intended application where more or less privacy is needed.
Regarding claims 25-28, Chen in view of Schitter discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific dimensions of stabilizer, filler, impact modifier, and processing aid. Applicant fails to show criticality for specifically claimed dimensions, therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen in view of Schitter to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims for reasons depending upon the particular function of the panel where more or less use is expected and to require stronger structures and various production times. These are obvious design choices that may be made and not effect the functionality of the prior art.
Regarding claim 29, the use of “regrinds” is not specifically disclosed. However, Schitter discloses the use of recycled material [0036] which is functionally equivalent. Also, regarding the percentage of such material, Applicant fails to show criticality for specifically claimed percentage, therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen in view of Schitter to use the dimensions such as in the claims as a design choice to reduce costs.
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. US 2019/0126595 to Chen et al. in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2009/0041987 to Schitter further in view of U.S. Patent Application No. US 2020/0208417 to LeBlanc.
Regarding claim 23, Chen in view of Schitter does not disclose the use of lubricants. LeBlanc discloses internal and external lubricants in an extruded panel [0033]. It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to use lubricants in order to help the process of making.
Regarding claim 24, the prior art discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific dimensions of lubricant percentage. Applicant fails to show criticality for specifically claimed dimensions, therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen in view of Schitter further in view of LeBlanc to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims depending upon the size of the product to be made.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/26 have been fully considered. The Applicant argues the intended function of the instant application as the dimensions claimed impart additional surfaces. These new limitations are addressed in the new office action above. The Applicant argues the dimensions of the embossing depth is not met by the prior art. However, this dimension is not critical, as a simple dimensional change will have no effect on the function of the prior art. The Applicant argues the intended function of the prior art but the claimed structural limitations of the application are met, structurally, by Chen combined with Schitter. Regarding the new claims presented, these are addressed above.
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 extension fee 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 Basil Katcheves whose telephone number is (571)272-6846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm EST.
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 on (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.
/BASIL S KATCHEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights