DETAILED ACTION
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: “applied to the board by means of a heated press treatment” in claim 2; and “coupling means allowing to couple” in claim 8.
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 6, 9-10 and 12 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 6 recites the limitation "the bottom" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “basically” in claim 9 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.
Please note, claims 10 is rendered indefinite as a result of its dependency upon claim 9.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the top layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 6, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fang et al. (US 20200047469 A1), hereinafter referred to as FANG.
Regarding claim 1, FANG teaches a panel, wherein the panel is a floor panel, a wall panel or a ceiling panel (paragraph [0004]: a weather-resistant composite floor),
wherein the panel comprises a board and a decorative layer provided on the board (paragraph [0063]: the method for preparing the wear-resistant paper preferably includes: immersing a decorative paper with a mixture containing an adhesive and a wear-resistant material to obtain the wear-resistant paper),
wherein the board is based on MgO and MgChloride or wherein the board is based on MgO and MgSulphate (paragraph [0089]: the mineral base material contained 30 parts of magnesium oxide, 1 part Magnesium Sulfate, and 15 parts of magnesium chloride),
wherein the decorative layer comprises a printed paper sheet being treated with a resin, wherein the resin is selected from melamine formaldehyde (MF), polyurethane (PU), latex, acrylate dispersion or a combination thereof (paragraph [0063]: immersing a decorative paper with a mixture containing an adhesive and a wear-resistant material to obtain the wear-resistant paper; the adhesive preferably includes a melamine resin).
Regarding claim 2, FANG teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein the decorative layer is applied to the board by means of a heated press treatment wherein a stack comprising said board, and at least said printed paper sheet treated with resin is brought into a heated press equipment and pressed, wherein a consolidation of the stack is attained together with a curing of the resin (paragraphs [0014: pasting a wear-resistant paper onto a top layer of an artificial mineral board, pasting a balance paper onto a bottom layer of the artificial mineral board, and hot pressing to obtain a semi-finished product of the weather-resistant composite floor; and [0063]: immersing a decorative paper with a mixture containing an adhesive and a wear-resistant material to obtain the wear-resistant paper; the adhesive preferably includes a melamine resin).
Regarding claim 6, FANG teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein the panel comprises a counterbalancing paper layer at the bottom of the board (paragraph [0014]: pasting a balance paper onto a bottom layer of the artificial mineral board).
Regarding claim 11, FANG teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein the board comprises cellulose based material (paragraph [0031]: the wood chips as the raw materials, and thus uses flexible plant fibers contained in the wood chips).
Regarding claim 15, FANG teaches the panel of claim 11, wherein the cellulose based material is selected from wood dust, wood fibers, wood particles, bamboo particles, paper fibers, or combinations thereof (paragraph [0031]: the wood chips as the raw materials).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FANG.
Regarding claim 3, FANG teaches the panel of claim 2, wherein said pressing is performed at a pressure of at least 20 bar, and a temperature of at least 120°C during at least 10 seconds (paragraphs [0014]: pasting a wear-resistant paper onto a top layer of an artificial mineral board, pasting a balance paper onto a bottom layer of the artificial mineral board, and hot pressing to obtain a semi-finished product of the weather-resistant composite floor; and [0016]: the heat-pressing temperature is 100-190° C.; the heat-pressing pressure is 2-15 MPa; and the heat-pressing time is 0.5-30 min). FANG teaches ranges which overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FANG in view of Drevet et al. (US 12109790 B1), hereinafter referred to as DREVET.
Regarding claim 4, FANG teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein the panel comprises a paper overlay sheet applied on the top of the printed paper sheet (see FANG at paragraph [0063]: immersing a decorative paper with a mixture containing an adhesive and a wear-resistant material to obtain the wear-resistant paper; the adhesive preferably includes a melamine resin; the wear-resistant material preferably includes aluminum oxide). While FANG is silent with respect to the overlay sheet being transparent, FANG discloses the decorative paper coated with a wear-resistant material including melamine resin and aluminum oxide (see FANG at paragraph [0063]). The transparency of such melamine resin comprising aluminum oxide is evidenced from the disclosure of DREVET describing a panel comprising a protective layer formed of a paper impregnated with a melamine resin (see DREVET at Col. 2, lines 28-29); and disclosing that the protective layer may additionally comprise abrasion-resistant particles, e.g., aluminum oxide (see DERVET at Col. 5, lines 65-67), and that those skilled in the art would understand that the protective layer can be substantially transparent because it is made of a thin paper and the resin used is transparent (see DERVET at Col. 6, lines 21-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the wear-resistant overlay layer of FANG is transparent, as evidenced by disclosure of DERVET based on teachings of FANG describing melamine resin comprising aluminum oxide.
Regarding claim 5, FANG as modified by DERVET teaches the panel paper of claim 5, wherein the paper overlay sheet is impregnated with resin and wherein the paper overlay sheet comprises aluminum oxide particles (see FANG at paragraph [0063]: immersing a decorative paper with a mixture containing an adhesive and a wear-resistant material to obtain the wear-resistant paper; the adhesive preferably includes a melamine resin; the wear-resistant material preferably includes aluminum oxide).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FANG in view of Tagge et al. (US 20030219580 A1), hereinafter referred to as TAGGE.
Regarding claim 14, FANG teaches the panel of claim 11, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the cellulose based material is coated with a coupling agent or resin.
However, TAGGE discloses a method of producing a fiber-reinforced composite for residential and commercial construction comprises systematic microstructure engineering, designed to create construction materials of controlled morphology at low cost and superior strength, thermal/sound insulation and moisture/fungus/microbial resistance than comparable unreinforced alternatives; such materials contain natural, synthetic, or inorganic fibers or particles having chemically modified surfaces, e.g., the attachment of a multifunctional polymer to a fiber or particle alters the properties of the particle, such as its water-repellent characteristics, tailoring the properties for specific applications (see TAGGE at paragraph [0010]). TAGGE also discloses that particulate or fibrous materials are chemically treated to provide mold-resistance, water repellency or anti-staining (see TAGGE at paragraph [0014]). Additionally, TAGGE teaches that fibrous and particulate materials include cellulose materials, such as paper and wood fiber (see TAGGE at paragraph [0037]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the panel of FANG by utilizing cellulose particles having chemically modified surfaces disclosed by TAGGE since TAGGE explicitly teaches chemically modifying surfaces of fibers alters the properties of the particle, such as its water-repellent characteristics, tailoring the properties for specific applications (see TAGGE at paragraph [0010]).
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 utilized cellulose particles having chemically modified surfaces disclosed by TAGGE in the panel of FANG in order to alter the properties of the particle, such as its water-repellent characteristics, tailoring the properties for specific applications.
Claims 1 and 7-10 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 panel, wherein the panel is a floor panel, a wall panel or a ceiling panel (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),
wherein the panel comprises a board and a decorative layer provided on the board (see CLEMENT at lines 31-37, p. 9: this panel comprises a basic material layer; this panel comprises a top layer, which gives a decorative appearance to the panel),
wherein the decorative layer comprises a printed paper sheet being treated with a resin, wherein the resin is selected from melamine formaldehyde (MF), polyurethane (PU), latex, acrylate dispersion or a combination thereof (see CLEMENT at lines 10, p. 4: a sheet impregnated with resin, which sheet functions as a décor layer; and lines 32-33, p. 4: the resin consists of a thermos-hardening resin, more particularly a melamine resin).
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 or wherein the board is based on MgO and MgSulphate.
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 vapor; this cement does not deteriorate (rot) because this cement expel moisture in an efficient manner (see BOUCKE at lines 18-29, p. 2).
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 vapor; 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 7, CLEMENT as modified by BOUCKE teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein the panel does not comprise a glass fiber net (see CLEMENT at line 10, p. 2: directly pressed laminate layer; and lines 36-37, p. 4 – lines 1-2, p. 5: resin-based covering provided on at least one side of the substrate, in the form of a laminate layer directly pressed onto substrate). CLEMENT does not teach that the disclose board comprises a glass fiber net.
Regarding claim 8, CLEMENT as modified by BOUCKE teaches the panel of claim 1, wherein the board is provided at at least two opposite edges with coupling means allowing to couple two such panels at the respective edges, wherein a vertical locking perpendicular to the plane of coupled panels and/or horizontal locking perpendicular to the respective edges and in the plane of the coupled panels is obtained (see CLEMENT at lines 6-9, p. 8: the board, on at least two opposite edges, is provided with coupling means which allow coupling two of such boards to each other, which are configured such that they, in the coupled condition, provide at least for a locking in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the coupled boards).
Regarding claim 9, CLEMENT as modified by BOUCKE teaches the panel of claim 8, wherein said coupling means are basically shaped as a tongue and groove, wherein the groove is bordered by an upper and lower lip (see CLEMENT at lines 6-12, p. 8: the board, on at least two opposite edges, is provided with coupling means … by means of a tongue and groove; and that the groove is bordered by a foremost lip and a rearmost lip).
Regarding claim 10, CLEMENT as modified by BOUCKE teaches the panel of claim 9, wherein said lower lip and/or said upper lip comprises a locking element taking part in said horizontal locking (see CLEMENT at Fig. 1 and lines 5-6, p. 18: use is made of a longer rearmost lip 7, which is provided with a locking element 8), wherein the respective lip is at least partially provided in a layer of the board that comprises cellulose fibers (see CLEMENT at lines 6-12, p. 8: the board, on at least two opposite edges, is provided with coupling means … by means of a tongue and groove; and that the groove is bordered by a foremost lip and a rearmost lip; and lines 1-6: fibers are present in the basic material; fibers consist of natural fibers and/or wood fibers).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 8-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/529358 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 6 and 8 recite:
1. A floor, wall or ceiling panel comprising a board and a decorative top layer; wherein the decorative top layer is provided on the board; 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); 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; wherein said board comprises at least one additive selected from the list metal soap, silanes, siloxanes and/or siliconates or a combination of both.
6. 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 a lower lip, wherein said upper lip is at least partially provided in a layer of the board comprising cellulose fibers.
8. The panel of claim 1, wherein the decorative top layer comprises a melamine treated paper sheet heat pressed to said board.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
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