DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-10, 16-20 in the reply filed on 10/16/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 10/16/25.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “acoustically damping damping layer” is grammatically incorrect and should read “acoustically damping layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “chosen from less than 5% by weight, less than 3% by weight and less than 1%” is incorrect and should read “chosen from less than 5% by weight, less than 3% by weight or less than 1%”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “chosen from at most 5,… and between 2 and 4 MPa” is incorrect and should read “chosen from at most 5, or between 2 and 4 MPa”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation connecting geometries on the edge, and the claim also recites in particular tongue and groove connecting which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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, 7, 9, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Pervan et al (WO 2011129755).
Pervan discloses wear resistant surfaces for building panels preferable floor panels (page 1 lines 3-4). The improved laminate floor as seen in figure 2, comprises a protective power layer (5) (applicants upper layer), a powder overlay, composed of melamine resin powder, processed wood fibers and abrasive particles, (3) a décor sheet composed of melamine resin impregnated cellulose fibers, which is a wood based material (stability layer), (7) an optional powder layer comprising melamine resin powder and processed wood fibers (damping layer), (4) a core material such as a high density fiber board (carrier plate) (page 10 lines 27-34).
As to claim 2, Pervan discloses that the laminate does not comprises PVC and therefore would be considered PVC free.
As to claim 7, Pervan discloses that the decorative layer can comprise melamine impregnated cellulose fibers (wood layer) (page 7 lines 24-25).
As to claim 9, Pervan discloses that the carrier plate is designed as an HDF board (page 10 lines 27-34).
As to claim 10, Pervan discloses that the protective layer, decorative layer, as well as damping layer have been impregnated with maleimide resin and heated and pressed together to bond the layers together (page 12 example 4).
As to claim 19, Pervan discloses that the decorative layer is formed from recycled wood fibers (page 7 line 28-30).
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.
Claims 4-6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pervan et al (WO 2011129755).
As to claim 4, Pervan anticipates claim 1 for the reasons noted above however is silent to the thickness of the carrier plate. Pervan discloses that the core for a laminated wood-based flooring usually comprises a thickness of 6 to 12 mm (page 1 line 22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pervan and formed the core layer to have a thickness of 6 to 12 mm as it’s a known thickness for a core layer in a laminated wood-based flooring.
As to claims 5, 6, and 17, in an alternative view Pervan discloses that a second decorative layer comprising fibers, melamine powder resin and pigment can be used under the first decorative layer (pages 12-13 example 5). In the alternative view the protective layer (protective film) and the first decorative layer will read on the upper layer structure and the second decorative layer will read on the stability layer. The decorative layer can comprise wood veneer or a wood covering (page 8 lines 5-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a decorative layer within the laminate as it would provide for additional aesthetically pleasing designs as well as Pervan discloses the use of a second decorative layer would be a suitable alterative.
Claims 1-10, 16-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pervan et al (WO 2011129755) in view of Thiers et al (US Publication 20030033777) as evidenced by Baert (CN113454303 which has been machine translated) for claim 8.
In an alternative view of Pervan, Pervan discloses wear resistant surfaces for building panels preferable floor panels (page 1 lines 3-4). The improved laminate floor as seen in figure 2, comprises a protective power layer (5) (applicants upper layer), a powder overlay, composed of melamine resin powder, processed wood fibers and abrasive particles, (3) a décor sheet composed of melamine resin impregnated cellulose fibers, which is a wood based material (stability layer), (7) an optional powder layer comprising melamine resin powder and processed wood fibers, (4) a core material such as a high density fiber board (carrier plate) (page 10 lines 27-34). However, this reference is silent to an acoustically damping layer.
Thiers discloses a hard top floor comprising a decorative surface and at least one sound-absorbing layer (abs). As seen in figure 1, the sound absorbing layer 4 is located on the upper surface of the basic layer 15 (core made of HDF) (paragraphs 65 and 74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pervan and added a sound absorbing layer on the upper surface of the core to improve the sound absorption properties of the flooring when people walk on it (paragraph 9 Thiers) and the use of a sound absorbing layer is known to be used within flooring.
As to claim 2, Pervan discloses that the laminate does not comprises PVC and therefore would be considered PVC free.
As to claims 3 and 16, Pervan is silent to the core having connecting geometries on the edge.
Theirs discloses a HDF board wherein the board comprises tongue and groove connections for the panels (fig 2 and paragraph 76).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pervan and had the panels have tongue and groove connections as these are known ways to interlock the panels and secure them together for flooring.
As to claim 4, Pervan discloses that the core for a laminated wood-based flooring usually comprises a thickness of 6 to 12 mm (page 1 line 22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pervan and formed the core layer to have a thickness of 6 to 12 mm as it’s a known thickness for a core layer in a laminated wood-based flooring.
As to claims 5, 6, and 17, in an alternative view Pervan discloses that a second decorative layer comprising fibers, melamine powder resin and pigment can be used under the first decorative layer (pages 12-13 example 5). In the alternative view the protective layer (protective film) and the first decorative layer will read on the upper layer structure and the second decorative layer will read on the stability layer. The decorative layer can comprise wood veneer or a wood covering (page 8 lines 5-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a decorative layer within the laminate as it would provide for additional aesthetically pleasing designs as well as Pervan discloses the use of a second decorative layer would be a suitable alterative.
As to claim 7, Pervan discloses that the decorative layer can comprise melamine impregnated cellulose fibers (wood layer) (page 7 lines 24-25).
As to claims 8 and 20, Theirs discloses that the sound absorbing layer 4 is made of cork (paragraph 76). As noted by Baert in paragraph 5, it teaches that the sound absorbing layer of Theirs (WO 2003016655A1 which is directly translated by US 20030033777) has an acoustic layer with an elastic modulus of .2 to 1.4 Mpa.
As to claim 9, Pervan discloses that the carrier plate is designed as an HDF board (page 10 lines 27-34).
As to claim 10, Pervan discloses that the protective layer, decorative layer, as well as damping layer have been impregnated with maleimide resin and heated and pressed together to bond the layers together (page 12 example 4).
As to claim 19, Pervan discloses that the decorative layer is formed from recycled wood fibers (page 7 line 28-30).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pervan et al (WO 2011129755) and Thiers et al (US Publication 20030033777) in view of by Baert (CN113454303 which has been machine translated).
Pervan and Theirs render claim 1 obvious for the reasons noted above, however is silent to a polyurethane overlay.
Baert discloses the use of a polyurethane overlay wear layer to protect he decorative layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Pervan and Theirs and added a polyurethane wear layer or used the polyurethane wear layer of Baert to improve the wear resistance of the flooring and provide increased protection to the decorative layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 pm.
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 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785