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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 10/22/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/30/2023 and 03/07/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald et al. (US 2020/0406594) in view of Brickner et al. (US 2017/0044778) and Shih et al. (US 2018/0050522).
Regarding claim 1, McDonald teaches a laminated wood polymer composite article comprising a laminated sheet on a core component (“a laminate covering”) (Paragraph [0002]). The laminated sheet comprises in order, as viewed in figure 3, a wear layer (“optics enabled surface layer”), an intermediate/tie layer (“a tie layer between the functional layer and the surface layer”), an ink layer, and printable films (“a functional layer”) to provide aesthetics, additional compatibility, or enhanced physical properties (Paragraph [0038]). The wear layer may be formed from an ionomer or an acrylic polymers, both of which may be provided with additives (“an optics enabled surface layer having additives, the surface layer comprising at least one of ionomer, ionomer blend, single ion cation ionomer, mixed cation ionomer, non-ionomer, and mixtures thereof”) (Paragraphs [0042]; [0047]-[0048]). The wear layer may include a hindered-amine light stabilizer and fine spheres (“the additives comprising at least one of non-silica hardener, siloxanes, amine and phenolic light stabilizers”) (Paragraphs [0041]-[0042]). The wear layer may include other additives including those with property modifying properties (Paragraph [0042]).
McDonald is silent with respect to the additives including an impact modifier including copolymers of styrene-butadiene rubbers and acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymers.
Brickner teaches polymeric flooring panels including a wear layer (Paragraph [0006]). The wear layers are provided with impact modifiers in order to offset any weaknesses in the polymers of the wear layer and the impact modifiers may be acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene polymers (Paragraphs [0018]-[0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the wear layers of McDonald to further include an impact modifier being ABS polymers in order to impart further impact resistance as taught by Brickner.
McDonald is silent with respect to the printable layers including a printable layer over a graphic effect layer.
Shih teaches laminate structures for use as wall coverings (Paragraph [0002]). The structures include a print film and a protective layer (Paragraph [0027]; Fig. 1). The print film provides excellent properties including print receptivity, conformability, low shrinkage, durability and combinations thereof (Paragraph [0027]). The print films may include a print layer and a support layer (Paragraph [0031]; Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the print films of McDonald to be formed from a print layer (“printable layer”) and a support layer (“graphic effect layer”) which are taught to provide excellent properties including print receptivity, conformability, low shrinkage, durability and combinations thereof as taught by Shih.
Regarding claim 2, McDonald teaches the laminated sheets as discussed above with respect to claim 1. McDonald further teaches the printable films being formed from a polyurethane (Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 3, McDonald teaches the laminated sheets as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the wear layer may be formed from an acrylic.
Regarding claim 9, McDonald teaches the laminated sheets as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the wear layer may be formed from an ionomer or an acrylic and includes various additives. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the wear layer of McDonald would provide various properties to the panels including being durable, thermoformable, chemical resistant, UV resistant, moisture resistant, impact resistant, scratch resistant, and has outdoor weatherability and soft feel.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald et al. (US 2020/0406594) in view of Brickner et al. (US 2017/0044778) and Shih et al. (US 2018/0050522) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maier et al. (US 2017/0217121).
Regarding claim 4, McDonald teaches the laminate sheet as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
McDonald is silent with respect to the tie layer comprising at least one of grafted homo or co-polymers of ethylene, propylene, or butene, each optionally mixed with maleic anhydride, maleic acid, or glycidyl methacrylate.
Maier teaches an embossed multilayer composite for floor coverings (Paragraph [0001]). The composite includes a top polymer layer formed from an ionomer, a tie layer, and a decorative layer (Paragraph [0009]). The tie layer may preferably be maleic anhydride grafted with polyethylene (Paragraph [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the tie layers of McDonald as maleic anhydride grafted with polyethylene which taught to be a sufficient adhesive for an ionomer with a decorative layer as described by Maier.
Regarding claims 5-6, McDonald teaches the laminate sheet as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
McDonald is silent with respect to the tie layer comprising at least one of olefinic, non-olefinic, thermoplastic adhesive, and combinations thereof, as required by claim 5, and the thermoplastic adhesive is selected from the group consisting of homo or copolymers or terpolymers of olefinic polymers grafted with maleic anhydride or glycidyl acrylate or methacrylate or amine groups or polyurethanes or polyamides or epoxy resin, as required by claim 6.
Maier teaches an embossed multilayer composite for floor coverings (Paragraph [0001]). The composite includes a top polymer layer formed from an ionomer, a tie layer, and a decorative layer (Paragraph [0009]). The tie layer may preferably be maleic anhydride grafted with polyethylene (Paragraph [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the tie layers of McDonald as maleic anhydride grafted with polyethylene which taught to be a sufficient adhesive for an ionomer with a decorative layer as described by Maier.
Regarding claim 7, McDonald teaches the laminate sheet as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
McDonald is silent with respect to the printable layer having a thickness of from 1 to 25 mil, the wear layer having a thickness of 0.1 to 20 mil and the thickness of the laminate sheet being from 0.1 to 5 mm.
Maier teaches an embossed multilayer composite for floor coverings (Paragraph [0001]). The composite includes a top polymer layer formed from an ionomer, a tie layer, and a decorative layer (Paragraph [0009]). The top polymer layer has a thickness of up to 500 microns, the tie layer has a thickness of up to 100 microns, and the decorative layer has a thickness of up to 500 microns (Paragraphs [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the wear layer to have a thickness of up to 500 microns (19.6 mil) which is considered equivalent to the top polymer layer, the tie layer to have a thickness of up to 100 microns, and the decorative layer to have a thickness of up to 500 microns (19.6 mil) which is considered equivalent to the decorative layer as taught by Maier. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would appreciate that the total thickness would be up to 1,100 microns, being 1.1 mm, overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, McDonald teaches the laminate sheet as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
McDonald is silent with respect to the wear layer being configured to exhibit at least one of the following properties: luminescence, thermochromism, textured look via the optics enabling, and anti-static, and wherein the surface layer is further configured to provide an aesthetic effect, the aesthetic effect selected from at least one of fluorescence, pearlescence, stone-look appearance and wood-look appearance.
Maier teaches an embossed multilayer composite for floor coverings (Paragraph [0001]). The composite includes a top polymer layer formed from an ionomer, a tie layer, and a decorative layer (Paragraph [0009]). The top polymer layer is embossed to provide imitations of the decorative layer including having an imitation of wood or stone (Paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the wear layer of McDonald with the embossments of Maier in order to provide imitations of the decorative layer including having an imitation of wood or stone.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 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, MARIA V 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783