DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4 and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 10, and claim 12, line 2, “the list metal soap” should read “the list of metal soap”;
in claims 4 and 13, line 3, “silane or siloxanes)” should read “silane or siloxanes”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: “coupling parts allowing to couple” in claim 1; and “coupling means allowing to couple” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-18 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 and 10, the phrases in parentheses: "so called MOC or magnesiumoxychloride" and “so called MOS or magnesiumoxysulfate” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase “so called” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Please note claims 2-9 are rendered indefinite as a result of their dependency on claim 1; claims 11-18 are rendered indefinite as a result of their dependency on claim 10.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the body" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “basically” in claims 6 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “basically” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the body" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clement et al. (WO 2018172959 A2), hereinafter referred to as CLEMENT, in view of Boucke et al. (WO 2020114645 A1), hereinafter referred to as BOUCKE.
Regarding claim 1, CLEMENT teaches a floor, wall or ceiling panel comprising a board and a decorative top layer; wherein the decorative top layer is provided on the board (see CLEMENT at lines 31-37, p. 9: a panel in the form of a floor panel and/or wall panel and/or ceiling panel, preferably of the type which is at least intended for interior application; wherein this panel comprises a top layer, which gives a decorative appearance to the panel);
wherein the board is provided at at least two opposite edges with coupling parts allowing to couple two such panels at the respective edges, wherein a vertical locking perpendicular to the plane of coupled panels and/or a horizontal locking perpendicular to the respective edges and in the plane of the coupled panels is obtained (see CLEMENT at lines 15-22, p. 6: the board, on at least two opposite edges, is provided with coupling means which allow coupling of such boards to each other; … provide for a locking according to a direction in the plane of the coupled boards and perpendicular to the coupled edges);
wherein said board comprises at least one additive selected from the list metal soap, silanes, siloxanes and/or siliconates or a combination of both (see CLEMENT at lines 36-37, p. 11: adding so-called metal soaps).
While CLEMENT discloses that the board is characterized in that it can be made of mineral-based composed material (see CLEMENT at lines 26-28, p. 8), CLEMENT fails to explicitly teach wherein the board is based on MgO and MgChloride (a board of so called MOC or magnesiumoxychloride) or wherein the board is based on MgO and MgSulphate (a board of so-called MOS or magnesiumoxysulphate).
However, BOUCKE discloses a decorative panel, a floor panel, a ceiling panel or a wall panel; and a floor covering consisting of a plurality of mutually coupled panels (see BOUCKE at lines 3-5, p. 1). BOUCKE also discloses a decorative panel comprising: a core provided with an upper and a lower side, a decorative top structure affixed on said upper side of the core, a first panel edge comprising a first coupling profile, and second panel edge comprising a second coupling profile being designed to engage interlockingly with said first coupling profile of an adjacent panel (see BOUCKE at lines 3-35, p. 1-lines 1-2, p. 2). BOUCKE teaches that a panel core comprises: at least one composite layer comprising: at least one magnesium oxide (magnesia) and/or magnesium hydroxide-based composition, in particular a magnesia cement; particles, in particular cellulose-based particles, dispersed in said magnesia cement; and, preferably, at least one reinforcement layer embedded in said composite layer; it has been found that the application of a magnesium oxide and/or magnesium hydroxide-based composition, and in particular a magnesia cement, significantly improves the inflammability (incombustibility) of the decorative panel as such; moreover, the relatively fireproof panel according to the invention also has a significantly improved dimensional stability when subject to temperature fluctuations during normal use (see BOUCKE at lines 5-13, p. 2). BOUCKE discloses additional advantages of magnesia cement: a first additional advantage is that magnesia cement can be manufactured in a relatively energetically efficient, and hence cost efficient, manner; moreover, magnesia cement has a relatively large compressive and tension strength; another advantage of magnesia cement is that this cement has a natural affinity for - typically inexpensive - cellulose materials, such as plant fibres wood powder (wood dust) and/or wood chips; this not only improves the binding of the magnesia cement, but also leads a weight saving and more sound insulation (damping); furthermore, magnesium oxide when combined with cellulose, and optionally clay, creates magnesia cements that breathes water vapour; this cement does not deteriorate (rot) because this cement expel moisture in an efficient manner (see BOUCKE at lines 18-29, p. 2).
Additionally, BOUCKE teaches that in one embodiment of a pane according to the invention, the magnesia-based composition, in particular the magnesia cement, comprises magnesium chloride (MgCI2); typically, when magnesia (MgO) is mixed with magnesium chloride in an aqueous solution, a magnesia cement will be formed which comprises magnesium oxychloride (MOC); the bonding phases are Mg(OH)2.MgCl2·8H2O (5-form), 3Mg(OH)2.MgCl2·8H2O (3-form), and Mg2(OH)ClCO3·3H2O (5-form) (see BOUCKE at lines 14-19, p. 3). BOUCKE also teaches that in another embodiment, the magnesium-based composition, and in particular the magnesia cement, is based upon magnesium sulphate, in particular heptahydrate sulphate mineral epsomite (MgSO4·7H2O); in aqueous solution MgO reacts with MgSO4, which leads to magnesium oxysulfate cement (MOS), which has very good binding properties; in MOS, 5MG(OH)2.MgSO4·8H2O is the most commonly found chemical phase (see BOUCKE at lines 15-21, p. 4).
Both CLEMENT’s and BOUCKE’s inventions are from the same field of endeavor, and describe interlocking floor panels comprising multiple layers, wherein the core layer comprises mineral-based material. According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the panel of CLEMENT by utilizing a magnesia cement as a mineral-based material as disclosed by BOUCKE since BOUCKE explicitly teaches advantages of magnesia cement including that magnesia cement can be manufactured in a relatively energetically efficient, and hence cost efficient, manner; that magnesia cement has a relatively large compressive and tension strength; and that this cement has a natural affinity for - typically inexpensive - cellulose materials, such as plant fibres wood powder (wood dust) and/or wood chips; this not only improves the binding of the magnesia cement, but also leads a weight saving and more sound insulation (damping); furthermore, magnesium oxide when combined with cellulose, and optionally clay, creates magnesia cements that breathes water vapour; this cement does not deteriorate (rot) because this cement expel moisture in an efficient manner (see BOUCKE at lines 18-29, p. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the panel of CLEMENT by utilizing a magnesia cement disclosed by BOUCKE in order to obtain the panel with large compressive and tension strength, and to manufacture the panel in a cost-efficient manner.
Regarding claim 2, CLEMENT as modified by BOUCKE teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein at least one of said at least two opposite edges is treated with a sealant (see CLEMENT at lines 26-34: therein-applied products which result in hydrophobic features; by impregnation and/or by providing them in the form of pre-primer, or by providing a combination thereof (vis this technique, the edges of the panels can be treated as well, in particular the surface of coupling parts formed thereon, in particular milled coupling parts allowing a mechanical locking).
Regarding claim 3, CLEMENT as modified by BOUCKE teaches the panel of claim 2, wherein the sealant is selected from the list of an alkali resistant sealant, paraffin, latex, acrylic, polyurethane, polyvinylalchohol (PVA), ethylene vinylacetate (EVA), PVAc dispersion, acylic styrene emulsion, silicate glue, solvent based one component resin, a solvent based two component resin, silane or siloxanes (see CLEMENT at lines 11-17, p. 11: means which enhances hydrophobicity, which means is incorporated on or next to the surface of the basic material; application of a silane- and/or siloxane-containing liquid; and lines 15-16, p. 12: as an alternative for the aforementioned silane, polyurethane is applied).
Regarding claim 4, CLEMENT as modified by BOUCKE teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein the body of the board comprises a binder selected from the list of latex, acrylic resin, polyurethane, polyvinylalchohol (PVA), ethylene vinylacetate (EVA), polyvinyl acetate (PVAc), acrylic styrene resin, silicate glue, silane or siloxanes (see CLEMENT at lines 21-24, p. 13: applying one or more of the following chemical products in the basic material layer: acrylic or methacrylic (co)polymers, PVA or EVA polymers, styrene/acrylic acid ester copolymers, silane or siloxane of silicone).
Regarding claim 5, CLEMENT as modified by BOUCKE teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein the board comprises separate fibers, wherein the separate fibers are selected from the list of glass fibers, PVA fibers, cellulose fibers and wood fibers (see CLEMENT at lines 35-36, p. 5: the reinforcement is formed by fibers; and lines 4-6, p. 20: fibers consist of synthetic fibers in general and/or natural fibers in general and/or wood fibers and/or paper fibers and/or carbon fibers and/or glass fibers).
Regarding claim 6, CLEMENT as modified by BOUCKE teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein said coupling parts are basically shaped as a tongue and a groove, wherein the groove is bordered by an upper and lower lip, wherein said upper lip is at least partially provided in a layer of the board comprising cellulose fibers (see CLEMENT at lines 8-13, p. 8: in the coupled condition, provide at least for a locking in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the coupled boards, preferably by means of tongue and groove; that the coupling means are realized substantially or entirely in one piece in the basic material layer; and that the groove is bordered by a foremost lip and a rearmost lip, wherein the rearmost lip, distally seen, extends farther than the foremost lip).
Regarding claim 8, CLEMENT as modified by BOUCKE teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein the decorative top layer comprises a melamine treated paper sheet heat pressed to said board (see CLEMENT at lines 31-37, p. 9: panel comprises a top layer, which gives a decorative appearance to the panel; line 25, p. 12: melamine-based top layer; line 11, p. 17: melamine layer pressed thereon; and lines 21-22, p. 17: compressing usually is performed at an increased temperature).
Regarding claim 9, CLEMENT as modified by BOUCKE teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein the board comprises one or more than one of:
a 517 MOS phase: 5Mg(OH)2.MgSO4.7H2O;
a 518 MOC phase: 5Mg(OH)2.MgCL2.8H2O;
a 318 MOC phase: 3Mg(OH)2.MgCl2.8H2O (see BOUCKE at lines 14-19, p. 3: 3Mg(OH)2.MgCl2·8H2O (3-form));
s 513 MOS phase: 5Mg(OH)2.MGSO4.3H2O; or
a 318 MOS phase: 3Mg(OH)2.MgSO4.3H2O.
Regarding claim 10, CLEMENT teaches a floor, wall or ceiling panel comprising a board and a decorative top layer; wherein the decorative top layer is provided on the board (see CLEMENT at lines 31-37, p. 9: a panel in the form of a floor panel and/or wall panel and/or ceiling panel, preferably of the type which is at least intended for interior application; wherein tis panel comprises a top layer, which gives a decorative appearance to the panel);
wherein the board is provided at at least two opposite edges with coupling parts allowing to couple two such panels at the respective edges, wherein a vertical locking perpendicular to the plane of coupled panels and/or a horizontal locking perpendicular to the respective edges and in the plane of the coupled panels is obtained (see CLEMENT at lines 15-22, p. 6: the board, on at least two opposite edges, is provided with coupling means which allow coupling of such boards to each other; … provide for a locking according to a direction in the plane of the coupled boards and perpendicular to the coupled edges);
wherein at least one of said at least two opposite edges is treated with a sealant (see CLEMENT at lines 26-34: therein-applied products which result in hydrophobic features; by impregnation and/or by providing them in the form of pre-primer, or by providing a combination thereof (vis this technique, the edges of the panels can be treated as well, in particular the surface of coupling parts formed thereon, in particular milled coupling parts allowing a mechanical locking).
While CLEMENT discloses that the board is characterized in that it can be made of mineral-based composed material, CLEMENT fails to explicitly teach wherein the board is based on MgO and MgChloride (a board of so called MOC or magnesiumoxychloride) or wherein the board is based on MgO and MgSulphate (a board of so-called MOS or magnesiumoxysulphate).
However, BOUCKE discloses a decorative panel, a floor panel, a ceiling panel or a wall panel; and a floor covering consisting of a plurality of mutually coupled panels (see BOUCKE at lines 3-5, p. 1). BOUCKE also discloses a decorative panel comprising: a core provided with an upper and a lower side, a decorative top structure affixed on said upper side of the core, a first panel edge comprising a first coupling profile, and second panel edge comprising a second coupling profile being designed to engage interlockingly with said first coupling profile of an adjacent panel (see BOUCKE at lines 3-35, p. 1-lines 1-2, p. 2). BOUCKE teaches that a panel core comprises: at least one composite layer comprising: at least one magnesium oxide (magnesia) and/or magnesium hydroxide-based composition, in particular a magnesia cement; particles, in particular cellulose-based particles, dispersed in said magnesia cement; and, preferably, at least one reinforcement layer embedded in said composite layer; it has been found that the application of a magnesium oxide and/or magnesium hydroxide-based composition, and in particular a magnesia cement, significantly improves the inflammability (incombustibility) of the decorative panel as such; moreover, the relatively fireproof panel according to the invention also has a significantly improved dimensional stability when subject to temperature fluctuations during normal use (see BOUCKE at lines 5-13, p. 2). BOUCKE discloses additional advantages of magnesia cement: a first additional advantage is that magnesia cement can be manufactured in a relatively energetically efficient, and hence cost efficient, manner; moreover, magnesia cement has a relatively large compressive and tension strength; another advantage of magnesia cement is that this cement has a natural affinity for - typically inexpensive - cellulose materials, such as plant fibres wood powder (wood dust) and/or wood chips; this not only improves the binding of the magnesia cement, but also leads a weight saving and more sound insulation (damping); furthermore, magnesium oxide when combined with cellulose, and optionally clay, creates magnesia cements that breathes water vapour; this cement does not deteriorate (rot) because this cement expel moisture in an efficient manner (see BOUCKE at lines 18-29, p. 2).
Additionally, BOUCKE teaches that in one embodiment of a pane according to the invention, the magnesia-based composition, in particular the magnesia cement, comprises magnesium chloride (MgCI2); typically, when magnesia (MgO) is mixed with magnesium chloride in an aqueous solution, a magnesia cement will be formed which comprises magnesium oxychloride (MOC); the bonding phases are Mg(OH)2.MgCl2·8H2O (5-form), 3Mg(OH)2.MgCl2·8H2O (3-form), and Mg2(OH)ClCO3·3H2O (5-form) (see BOUCKE at lines 14-19, p. 3). BOUCKE also teaches that in another embodiment, the magnesium-based composition, and in particular the magnesia cement, is based upon magnesium sulphate, in particular heptahydrate sulphate mineral epsomite (MgSO4·7H2O); in aqueous solution MgO reacts with MgSO4, which leads to magnesium oxysulfate cement (MOS), which has very good binding properties; in MOS, 5MG(OH)2.MgSO4·8H2O is the most commonly found chemical phase (see BOUCKE at lines 15-21, p. 4).
Both CLEMENT’s and BOUCKE’s inventions are from the same field of endeavor, and describe interlocking floor panels comprising multiple layers, wherein the core layer comprises mineral-based material. According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the panel of CLEMENT by utilizing a magnesia cement as a mineral-based material as disclosed by BOUCKE since BOUCKE explicitly teaches advantages of magnesia cement including that magnesia cement can be manufactured in a relatively energetically efficient, and hence cost efficient, manner; that magnesia cement has a relatively large compressive and tension strength; and that this cement has a natural affinity for - typically inexpensive - cellulose materials, such as plant fibres wood powder (wood dust) and/or wood chips; this not only improves the binding of the magnesia cement, but also leads a weight saving and more sound insulation (damping); furthermore, magnesium oxide when combined with cellulose, and optionally clay, creates magnesia cements that breathes water vapour; this cement does not deteriorate (rot) because this cement expel moisture in an efficient manner (see BOUCKE at lines 18-29, p. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the panel of CLEMENT by utilizing a magnesia cement disclosed by BOUCKE in order to obtain the panel with large compressive and tension strength, and to manufacture the panel in a cost-efficient manner.
Regarding claim 11, CLEMENT as modified by BOUCKE teaches the panel of claim 10, wherein the sealant is selected from the list of an alkali resistant sealant, paraffin, latex, acrylic, polyurethane, polyvinylalchohol (PVA), ethylene vinylacetate (EVA), PVAc dispersion, acylic styrene emulsion, silicate glue, solvent based one component resin, a solvent based two component resin, silane or siloxanes (see CLEMENT at lines 11-17, p. 11: means which enhances hydrophobicity, which means is incorporated on or next to the surface of the basic material; application of a silane- and/or siloxane-containing liquid; and lines 15-16, p. 12: as an alternative for the aforementioned silane, polyurethane is applied).
Regarding claim 12, CLEMENT as modified by BOUCKE teaches the panel of claim 10, wherein said board comprises at least one additive selected from the list metal soap, silanes, siloxanes and/or siliconates or a combination of both (see CLEMENT at lines 36-37, p. 11: adding so-called metal soaps).
Regarding claim 13, CLEMENT as modified by BOUCKE teaches the panel of claim 10, wherein the body of the board comprises a binder selected from the list of latex, acrylic resin, polyurethane, polyvinylalchohol (PVA), ethylene vinylacetate (EVA), polyvinyl acetate (PVAc), acrylic styrene resin, silicate glue, silane or siloxanes (see CLEMENT at lines 21-24, p. 13: applying one or more of the following chemical products in the basic material layer: acrylic or methacrylic (co)polymers, PVA or EVA polymers, styrene/acrylic acid ester copolymers, silane or siloxane of silicone).
Regarding claim 14, CLEMENT as modified by BOUCKE teaches the panel of claim 10, wherein the board comprises separate fibers, wherein the separate fibers are selected from the list of glass fibers, PVA fibers, cellulose fibers and wood fibers (see CLEMENT at lines 35-36, p. 5: the reinforcement is formed by fibers; and lines 4-6, p. 20: fibers consist of synthetic fibers in general and/or natural fibers in general and/or wood fibers and/or paper fibers and/or carbon fibers and/or glass fibers).
Regarding claim 15, CLEMENT as modified by BOUCKE teaches the panel of claim 10, wherein said coupling parts are basically shaped as a tongue and a groove, wherein the groove is bordered by an upper and lower lip, wherein said upper lip is at least partially provided in a layer of the board comprising cellulose fibers (see CLEMENT at lines 8-13, p. 8: in the coupled condition, provide at least for a locking in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the coupled boards, preferably by means of tongue and groove; that the coupling means are realized substantially or entirely in one piece in the basic material layer; and that the groove is bordered by a foremost lip and a rearmost lip, wherein the rearmost lip, distally seen, extends farther than the foremost lip).
Regarding claim 17, CLEMENT as modified by BOUCKE teaches the panel of claim 10, wherein the decorative top layer comprises a melamine treated paper sheet heat pressed to said board (see CLEMENT at lines 31-37, p. 9: panel comprises a top layer, which gives a decorative appearance to the panel; line 25, p. 12: melamine-based top layer; line 11, p. 17: melamine layer pressed thereon; and lines 21-22, p. 17: compressing usually is performed at an increased temperature).
Regarding claim 18, CLEMENT as modified by BOUCKE teaches the panel of claim 10, wherein the board comprises one or more than one of:
a 517 MOS phase: 5Mg(OH)2.MgSO4.7H2O;
a 518 MOC phase: 5Mg(OH)2.MgCL2.8H2O;
a 318 MOC phase: 3Mg(OH)2.MgCl2.8H2O (see BOUCKE at lines 14-19, p. 3: 3Mg(OH)2.MgCl2·8H2O (3-form));
s 513 MOS phase: 5Mg(OH)2.MGSO4.3H2O; or
a 318 MOS phase: 3Mg(OH)2.MgSO4.3H2O.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fang et al. (US 20200047469 A1) discloses the weather-resistant composite floor including a wear layer, an artificial mineral board and a back lay which are laminated and bonded with one another; the artificial mineral board includes modified mineral layers and fiberglass mesh layers which are alternately laminated; and the bottom and top layers of the artificial mineral board are the modified mineral layers; the wear layer and the back lay are respectively bonded to two opposite sides of the artificial mineral board (Abstract). FANG also discloses that the mineral base material preferably includes magnesium oxide and magnesium chloride (paragraph [0030]); the raw material of the modified mineral layer includes the wood chips (paragraph [0031]); and that in order to improve the convenience for the installation of the composite floor, two opposite side end portions of the weather-resistant composite floor are respectively provided with a flange “a” and a groove “b” which can be snap-fitted with the flange “a” (paragraph [0050]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731