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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment and remarks, filed 03/19/2026, are noted with appreciation.
Claims 1-17 remain pending.
Support for the amendment to independent claim 1 can be found, inter alia, at [0008]-[0012] of the originally-filed specification.
The objection to claim 10, set forth in the final Office action 12/19/2025 (“final action”), is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-15 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 07/07/2025.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 10/28/2025, disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 11,951,511 B2, was reviewed, accepted, and recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that at least the limitation “coating a coated or uncoated carrier web with at least two ungelled PVC plastisol layers, simultaneously or in immediate succession thereafter.” The Primary Examiner disagrees. This limitation would have been prima facie obvious for the reasons explained in annotated detail at ¶¶ 24-26 of the final action. Applicant has not specifically addressed how or why the Primary Examiner’s rationale in support of the prima facie case of obviousness is in error. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b). Consequently, the rejection is maintained.
Moreover, upon further consideration, Hudson’s Example 1 alone anticipates at least some of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), as set forth herein below.
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- 10 and 16 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
Claim 1 recites “coating . . . at least two ungelled PVC plastisol layers, simultaneously or in immediate succession thereafter, arranged one above the other.” This phrase is indefinite because “thereafter” implies the coating happens immediately after some event (after what?). That event is not clearly identified in the claim. The Primary Examiner understands “thereafter” to mean that the second PVC plastisol layer is coated immediately after the first PVC plastisol layer is coated – and interprets the claim as such – but the meaning of this limitation as-written remains unclear and one of ordinary skill in the art would find the metes and bounds of the claim impossible to determine.
Claims 2-10 and 16
Claims 2-10 are rejected for the same reasons as independent claim 1 above because they incorporate the indefinite subject matter by virtue of their dependency and fail to remedy the indefiniteness.
Claim 17
NOTE: Claim 17 recites “at least two layers . . . are coated . . . simultaneously or in immediate succession.” Here, the term “thereafter” is absent and does not confuse the issue. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood that the second PVC plastisol is coated immediately after the first PVC plastisol is coated.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hudson et al. (US 2002/0176945 A1).
Claim 1
In Example 1 [0069], Hudson teaches a process comprising applying four plastisol layers to a paper web, wet-on-wet, using a gravity fed four-cavity slot die, and simultaneously gelling and fusing without layer intermixing. The plastisol formulations are explicitly taught as being those of Example 1 in US 5,223,322 A, which teaches that all four plastisol layers are PVC plastisols. See US 322 at 6:50-7:55 and MPEP § 2131.01.
The four-cavity slot die has a plurality of slots in a die to apply the individual layers [0047] (the representative illustration from Hudson, infra, shows a two-cavity slot die; the four-cavity slot die of Example 1 would have four cavities instead of two). Each coating remains separate and distinct from the remaining coating layers [0047]. The layers are applied simultaneously before they are cured [0048]. Specifically, Hudson teaches “four gravity fed, open bottom hoppers . . . arranged in tandem such that the downstream bottom was 10 mils above the downstream bottom of the preceding hopper” [Fig. 6]. Since the there is a point in time where more than one of the layers is ejected from the slot dies at the same time, it is the Primary Examiner’s position that this reads on “simultaneous.” Insofar as the first coating material contacts the substrate first, followed by the second, etc., Hudson’s Fig. 6 could also read on sequential deposition. The layers remain separate and distinct as applied to the substrate both before curing and after curing [0048]. The slot nozzle does not contact the layers once they are deposited (the applied layers trail behind the applicator in the direction of the bottom-most arrow):
PNG
media_image1.png
712
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3
PNG
media_image2.png
316
796
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6
Here, Hudson’s wet-on-wet application of four PVC plastisol layers to a paper web using the multicavity slot die in Hudson reads on the claimed “coating a coated or uncoated carrier web with at least two ungelled PVC plastisol layers, simultaneously or in immediate succession, arranged one above the other, whereby a carrier web coated with at least two ungelled plastisol layers is obtained.” Further, Hudson’s gelling and fusing the applied four layers of PVC plastisols reads on the claimed “gelling the ungelled plastisol layers, whereby a carrier web coated with at least two gelled plastisol layers is obtained. Finally, it is the Primary Examiner’s position that, since Hudson’s gelling and fusing takes place in an oven (i.e., at an elevated temperature), and the finished product is at room temperature and/or intended to be used at room temperature, Hudson inherently teaches “cooling the carrier web coated with the gelled plastisol layers.” See MPEP § 2112(IV).
Claim 2
Hudson teaches the wet-on-wet application of four, ungelled PVC plastisol layers using a multicavity slot dies to apply the layers simultaneously, supra.
Claim 3
Hudson teaches the simultaneous gelling and fusing of all four PVC plastisol layers, supra.
Claim 17
Hudson teaches the simultaneous application of four PVC plastisols (“at least two PVC plastisols”) to a paper web, supra.
Claim 6
Hudson teaches applying the four PVC plastisol layers of Example 1 in US 5,223,322 A. All of the layers taught in US 322 are compositionally different:
Layer 4
PNG
media_image3.png
126
438
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Layer 3
PNG
media_image4.png
126
438
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Layer 2
PNG
media_image5.png
140
436
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Layer 1
PNG
media_image6.png
144
438
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 7
Hudson teaches that the plurality of nozzles (i.e., openings) of the multicavity slot die are fluidically separated as illustrated, supra.
Claim 8
Hudson teaches the coating system comprises a pump to supply the coating [0057, 0063].
Claim 16
Hudson teaches the slot nozzle does not contact the layers once they are deposited because the applied layers trail behind the applicator in the direction of the bottom-most arrow in the illustration, supra.
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(s) 1-10, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witman (US 3,870,591 A) in view of Hudson et al. (US 2002/0176945 A1) alone or, in the alternative, further in view of Gorshkov et al. (SU 1684376 A1; reference made to attached English-language machine translation).
Claims 1-3, 7, 16, and 17
PNG
media_image7.png
428
764
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Witman discloses a method of fabricating a multilayer PVC product [abstract]. The method comprises coating a backing with PVC [1:63-67] foamable plastisol layer [4:14-20]. The backing is made of a web such as felt/asbestos backing which are webs of fibers (i.e., a carrier web). A non-foamable PVC plastisol layer is formed on the foamable PVC plastisol layer [4:54-59] (utilizing the same resins as in the foamable layer). A further foamable PVC layer is applied and a clear plastisol wear layer is then applied [6:7-23]. After all the layers are applied, the layers are cured (i.e., gelled) [2:5-15]. The product is used at room temperature so it would necessarily be cooled after fabrication.
Witman discloses applying several layers of PVC plastisol but does not disclose that the coating step can include coating at least two PVC plastisols simultaneously or in immediate succession.
However, Hudson teaches, in the field of coating fluid compositions such as a plastisol [0010], compositions that are deposited over a substrate [abstract; 0007]. The method of Hudson applies the composition over the webs/felt/porous fibrous layers [0037]. Hudson applies a plurality of coating layers simultaneously [0047]. In the alternative, Hudson’s teaching can read on sequential application, supra. See also [0048]. The system has a plurality of slots in a die to apply the individual layers [0047]. Each coating remains separate and distinct from the remaining coating layers [0047]. The layers are applied simultaneously before they are cured [0048]. The layers remain separate and distinct as applied to the substrate both before curing and after curing [0048]. The slot nozzle does not contact the layers once they are deposited (the applied layers trail behind the applicator in the direction of the bottom-most arrow):
PNG
media_image1.png
712
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Witman and apply the layers using the multislot die of Hudson. Hudson discloses utilizing the multislot die allows for simultaneous/sequential plastisol layers over a substrate, wherein each layer maintains its properties. Furthermore, Hudson discloses that the method reduces expense, space, and time by coating each layer, thus a desirable advantage over Witman.
Finally, it is the Primary Examiner’s position that, since Hudson’s gelling and fusing takes place in an oven (i.e., at an elevated temperature), and the finished product is at room temperature and/or intended to be used at room temperature, Hudson inherently teaches “cooling the carrier web coated with the gelled plastisol layers.” See MPEP § 2112(IV).
In the alternative, should the claimed “cooling” require some form of active cooling (as opposed to passive cooling), Gorshkov teaches a process of manufacturing a multi-layer PVC layered product (linoleum) in a production line [0001]-[0002]. After application of PVC paste to a backing member and gelling, the material is cooled in a cooling device (i.e., a unit) (17) [0017], [0029]. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of Witman in view of Hudson so as to utilize a cooling device/unit to bring the gelled product to room temperature (or at least to a temperature that allows further processing, such as application of a further PVC layer that would gel too soon if the underlying layer were not cooled). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so by the desire and expectation of utilizing a known means (a cooling device/unit being known from Gorshkov) for achieving the cooling to room temperature taught/inherent in the prior art of Witman in view of Hudson. Here, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yields nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 4
Witman discloses the deposition of four (4) layers comprising PVC plastisol compositions. Based on the combination with Hudson above, where Hudson uses a two-cavity slot die, the coating would be concluded in two steps. Witman discloses that gentle heat can be applied between coatings to gel and allow handling for further treatment [6:7-15].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Witman and gel the simultaneously applied plastisol layers to gel and allow handling for further treatment.
Claim 5
Witman discloses depositing multiple plastisols as shown above. Witman applies a single plastisol layer. Hudson discloses applying the layers with single cavity dies or multiple-cavity dies [0052]. The method of Hudson allows for control of the thickness of the coating [0057, 0062-63].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Witman by applying a single or multiple layer plastisol. Both Witman and Hudson disclose applying a single layer of plastisol – or multiple layers, depending on the nozzle die utilized.
Here, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yields nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 6
Witman discloses that the plastisols are different in that one is foamable and the other is not. Moreover, Witman discloses several ingredients such as resin, plasticizer, blowing gents, pigments, and dyes [3:36-40]. Witman discloses one layer has less blowing agent resulting in higher density [4:37-45].
Claim 8
Hudson teaches the coating system comprises a pump to supply the coating [0057, 0063].
Claim 9
Hudson teaches adjusting the pressure or line speed to achieve the desired thickness of the coating [0057].
Claim 10
Hudson teaches that the pump pressure is a function of the carrier speed [0062-63].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P FLETCHER III whose telephone number is (571)272-1419. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM - 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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571) 272-1166. 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.
WILLIAM PHILLIP FLETCHER III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/WILLIAM P FLETCHER III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
26 March 2026