DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant filed a response; amended claim 1, 5-6, and 8; canceled claims 4 and 7; and added new claims 11-21 on 10/29/2025.
The 112(b) rejection previously presented are withdrawn in view of amendments.
Response to Arguments
Arguments are primarily drawn to the amended claims. The revised rejection below addresses the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-3, 5-6, and 8-10 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.
In claim 1, line 21, “to the top layers of coupled panels”, it is unclear if “coupled panels” are the same or a different coupled panel. The limitation will be interpreted as –to the top layers of said coupled panels--.
Claim 6 requires a first pair of horizontally active locking surfaces. It is unclear if the first pair of horizontally active locking surfaces are identical to the horizontally active locking surfaces of claim 1 or are in reference to the horizontally active locking surfaces in the pair of short opposite edges.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim 1, 3, 5, and 8-16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ricciardelli (PG-PUB 2002/0189183) in view of Pervan (PG-PUB 2009/0155612), Oldorff (EP1454763, machine translation provided), Burt (US 5,560,797), and Moriau (US 6,006,486).
Regarding claim 1, Ricciardelli teaches a panel being rectangular and oblong, having at least a pair of longitudinal opposite edges and a pair of short opposite edges (Figures 1-5);
said panel comprising an extruded synthetic material substrate [0022] and a top layer located on a flat side of said synthetic material substrate [0024];
wherein said synthetic material substrate comprising polyvinyl chloride and fillers [0023]-[0024];
wherein said top layer includes a decorative layer comprising a photographic image of a wood floor section (Figure 5, item 50 and [0039]) and a transparent or translucent wear layer (Figure 5, item 52 and [0041]), wherein the decorative layer is made of a polymeric material and synthetic material [0039], wherein said transparent wear layer is applied to the decorative layer using an adhesive [0041] and the decorative layer is applied via an adhesive backing onto the synthetic material substrate [0039].
Ricciardelli teaches the transparent wear-resistant layer is a film of polyurethane [0041].
Ricciardelli teaches the pair of longitudinal opposite edges of said panel comprises mechanical coupling means allowing to couple two of said panel along the respective edges by means of at least a shifting movement of the respective edges towards each other, wherein said two of said panels, in a coupled condition, are locked to each other at least in a direction perpendicular to a plane of said two of said panel, said mechanical coupling means being performed as a first tongue and a first groove, wherein, in said coupled condition, at least a pair of horizontally active locking surfaces is formed at least adjacent to the top layers of coupled panels (Figure 2-5 and [0033]-[0037]). Ricciardelli teaches the pair of horizontally active locking surfaces are provided at an angle and comprising said printed pattern and wear layer (Figures 2-5 and [0035])
Ricciardelli does not explicitly teach a wall panel. However, given that the structure of Ricciardelli is identical to the claimed panel structure, the panel of Ricciardelli would be capable of use as a wall panel.
Ricciardelli does not teach:
(1) said synthetic material substrate has a density of more than 450 kilograms per cubic meter, said flat side of said synthetic material substrate having a density which is at least 10% higher than 900 kilograms per cubic meter;
(2) said transparent or translucent wear layer at least including a UV hardened substance and said printed pattern is a pattern performed on a primer layer applied on said synthetic material substrate;
(3) said top layer is provided to the flat side of the synthetic material substrate in the absence of an intermediate glue layer; and
(4) said pair of horizontally active locking surfaces being substantially vertical and comprising lateral portions of said printed pattern and said transparent or translucent wear layer.
As to (1), Pervan teaches a high density floor panel comprising a core with a density between 600-1000 kilograms per cubic meter [0100]. Pervan teaches dense floor panels provide improved sound levels [0103], lower thermal conductivity, [0103], impact resistance [0160], [0282], and moisture resistance [0160].
Both Ricciardelli and Pervan are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to floor panels comprising protective layers. Ricciardelli does not disclose the density of the substrate, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the substrate density of Ricciardelli with the known suitable density as taught by Pervan to yield the predictable result of providing an appropriate substrate density for a floor panel.
Given that Ricciardelli in view of Pervan teaches the substrate density ranges from 600-1000 kilograms per cubic meter, the claimed range of a density of 10% higher than 900 kilograms per cubic meter (i.e., higher than 990 kilograms per cubic meter) would overlap with the range taught in the prior art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a density of greater than 990 kilograms per cubic meter from the teachings of Ricciardelli in view of Pervan.
Furthermore, given that the entire substrate would have the selected density, the density of the flat side would also be greater than 990 kilograms per cubic meter.
As to (2), Oldorff teaches manufacturing a flooring laminate [0002], [0017]-[0019] comprising:
a) applying a sealing layer of melamine resin to the top side of the plate,
b) printing a decoration on the sealing layer,
c) applying a protective layer of melamine resin to the decor,
d) pressing the sheet under the action of temperature until the protective layer and the sealing layer melt and bond to one another, including the printed decoration [0006].
Oldorff teaches printing on a primer layer avoids using paper layers/webs, simplifying the handling [0007] and lowering production time and cost [0009]-[0011], [0016]. Oldorff teaches applying said transparent or translucent wear layer at least including a UV hardened substance (Claim 18).
Both Ricciardelli and Oldorff are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to floor panels comprising print layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the top layer of Ricciardelli with the top layer of Oldorff, including a printed pattern disposed on a primer layer and wear layer with UV hardened substance, a known suitable top layer for floor panels, for the benefit of simplifying production and avoiding handling of layers and webs as taught by Oldorff.
While Oldorff does not explicitly teach said wear layer is transparent or translucent, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the UV-hardened wear layer of Oldorff would be transparent or translucent in order to exhibit the printed pattern below as desired by Oldorff.
As to (3), Burt teaches a floor panel, wherein a cover layer is laminated to an extruded substrate via heat welding (Figures 2-4 and Col 3, ln 14-35).
Both Ricciardelli and Burt are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to floor panels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the floor panel of Ricciardelli by substituting the adhesive technique of bonding the top layer to the substrate of Ricciardelli with the welding technique of Burt, a known suitable technique for bonding a substrate and cover layer for a floor panel, to yield the predictable result of joining a substrate and cover layer. Accordingly, Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Oldorf, and Burt would teach the top layer is provided to the flat side of the synthetic material substrate in the absence of an intermediate glue layer.
As to (4), Moriau teaches a floor covering comprising coupling parts in the form of a tongue and groove to provide integrated mechanical locking and prevent drifting apart of two coupled floor panels (Abstract). Moriau teaches several embodiments, using different shaped tongues and grooves (Figures 2-11 and 22-25). Moriau teaches panels comprising a pair of longitudinal opposite edges comprising mechanical coupling means allowing to couple two of said panel along the respective edge (Col 5, ln 28-55 and Col 6, ln 36-Col 7, ln 3), wherein said two of said panel, in a coupled condition, are locked to each other at least in a direction perpendicular to a plane of said two of said panel (Col 7, ln 10-64), said mechanical coupling means being performed as a first tongue and groove (Figures 2-11 and 22-25 and Col 7, ln 10-64), wherein in said coupled condition, at least a pair of horizontally active locking surfaces is formed at least adjacent to the top layers of said coupled panels, said pair of horizontally active locking surfaces being substantially vertical and comprising lateral portions of said top layer (Figures 2-11 and 22-25 and Col 7, ln 10-64).
It would have been obvious ton one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify panel of Ricciardelli, in particular the tongue and groove configuration of said panel, with the configuration of the tongue and groove configuration comprising vertical locking surfaces of Moriau, a known suitable interlocking configurations for panels, to yield the predictable result of interlocking panels and prevent horizontal movement or separation in the panels.
Regarding claim 3, Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Hallenbeck, and Burt teaches the panel as applied to claim 1.
Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Hallenbeck, and Burt does not teach the thickness of the transparent layer forms at least 25% of the thickness of said top layer.
However, Pervan teaches a surface layer (i.e., top layer) comprising the surface
layer, which gives the panel decorative effects and wear resistance, is a homogenous layer comprising parts of fibers, colour pigments, a binder and wear resistant particles [0056], [0057], [0060], [0132], wherein the surface layer comprises a transparent wear layer, decorative layer, and coating layer [0132] and [0138]. Pervan teaches the surface layer can range from 0.1 mm to 4 mm [0143].
Given that Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Hallenbeck, and Burt is silent to the thickness of the top layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the panel of Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Hallenbeck, and Burt with the known suitable top layer thickness of Pervan, to yield the predictable result of providing suitable dimensions for the panel of Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Hallenbeck, and Burt.
Given that the top layer and transparent layer of Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Hallenbeck, and Burt have thickness range of up to 4 mm and 0.051 mm to 0.253 mm, respectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide thicknesses of the top layer and transparent layer within these ranges, thereby providing a transparent layer that would be at least 25% of the thickness of the top layer.
Regarding claim 5, Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Oldorff, Burt, and Moriau teaches the panel as applied to claim 1, wherein said first groove is flanked by an upper lip and a lower lip, wherein said lower lip extends distally beyond the upper lip (Moriau, Figures 5-7 and 22).
Regarding claim 8, Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Oldorff, Burt, and Moriau teaches the panel as applied to claim 1, wherein at least one or both edges of said pair of longitudinal opposite edges is provided with a recessed edge having a shape of a chamfer (Ricciardelli, Figures 3-5 and [0036]-[0037]).
Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Oldorff, Burt, and Moriau does not teach at least one or both edges of said pair of longitudinal opposite edges is provided with a recessed edge having a shape of a chamfer limited in depth to the thickness of said transparent or translucent layer.
Pervan teaches a floor panel along at least one of its edges is provided with a recessed edge having a depth of the thickness of the transparent layer or translucent layer or smaller (Figures 8A-8C). Pervan teaches flexible sealing material could
be applied during production or during installation between two edges in order to create a decorative effect and/or to prevent moisture to penetrate into the joint [0177]. Pervan teaches a thermoplastic material could be incorporated into the fibres during production
and could be machined to an edge sealing that is integrated into one or both adjacent edges [0177].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the floor panel of Ricciardelli to include a recessed edge sized relative to the transparent or translucent layer as taught in Pervan, for the benefit of providing means for tightly joining the panels and preventing moisture from penetrate the coupling means, a desirable property in floor panels as taught by Pervan.
Regarding claim 9, Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Oldorff, Burt, and Moriau and Burt teaches the panel as applied to claim 1, wherein said panel is rigid (Ricciardelli, [0022]-[0024]).
While Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Oldorff, Burt, and Moriau does not explicitly disclose the panel cannot be wound up, given that the floor panel of Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Oldorff, Burt, and Moriau is identical to the claimed floor panel, the floor panel of Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Oldorff, Burt, and Moriau would have the same rigidity and would not be capable of being wound up.
Regarding claim 10, Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Oldorff, Burt, and Moriau teaches the panel as applied to claim 1, wherein said panel has a thickness of 0.20 inches to about 0.75 inches (5.08 to 19.05 mm) (Ricciardelli, [0023]).
Given that the claimed range is within the range taught in the prior art, the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11 and 16, Ricciardelli teaches a panel being rectangular and oblong, having at least a pair of longitudinal opposite edges and a pair of short opposite edges (Figures 1-5);
said panel comprising an extruded synthetic material substrate [0022] and a top layer located on a flat side of said synthetic material substrate [0024];
wherein said synthetic material substrate comprising polyvinyl chloride and fillers [0023]-[0024], capable of being extruded;
wherein said top layer includes a decorative layer comprising a photographic image of a wood floor section (Figure 5, item 50 and [0039]) and a transparent or translucent wear layer (Figure 5, item 52 and [0041]), wherein the decorative layer is made of a polymeric material and synthetic material [0039], wherein said transparent wear layer is applied to the decorative layer using an adhesive [0041] and the decorative layer is applied via an adhesive backing onto the synthetic material substrate [0039].
Ricciardelli teaches the transparent wear-resistant layer is a film of polyurethane [0041].
Ricciardelli teaches the pair of longitudinal opposite edges of said panel comprises mechanical coupling means allowing to couple two of said panel along the respective edges by means of at least a shifting movement of the respective edges towards each other, wherein said two of said panels, in a coupled condition, are locked to each other at least in a direction perpendicular to a plane of said two of said panel, said mechanical coupling means being performed as a first tongue and a first groove, wherein, in said coupled condition, at least a pair of horizontally active locking surfaces is formed at least adjacent to the top layers of coupled panels (Figure 2-5 and [0033]-[0037]). Ricciardelli teaches the pair of horizontally active locking surfaces are provided at an angle and comprising said printed pattern and wear layer (Figures 2-5 and [0035])
Ricciardelli does not explicitly teach a wall panel. However, given that the structure of Ricciardelli is identical to the claimed panel structure, the panel of Ricciardelli would be capable of use as a wall panel.
Ricciardelli does not teach:
(1) said synthetic material substrate has a density of more than 450 kilograms per cubic meter;
(2) said printed pattern is a pattern performed on a primer layer applied on said substrate and said transparent or translucent wear layer at least including a UV hardened substance;
(3) said top layer is provided to the flat side of the synthetic material substrate in the absence of an intermediate glue layer; and
(4) said pair of horizontally active locking surfaces being substantially vertical and comprising lateral portions of said printed pattern and said transparent or translucent wear layer.
As to (1), Pervan teaches a high density floor panel comprising a core with a density between 600-1000 kilograms per cubic meter [0100]. Pervan teaches dense floor panels provide improved sound levels [0103], lower thermal conductivity, [0103], impact resistance [0160], [0282], and moisture resistance [0160].
Both Ricciardelli and Pervan are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to floor panels comprising protective layers. Ricciardelli does not disclose the density of the substrate, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the substrate density of Ricciardelli with the known suitable density as taught by Pervan for the benefit of providing dense floor panels with improved sound levels, impact resistance, and moisture resistance as taught by Pervan.
As to (2), Oldorff teaches manufacturing a flooring laminate [0002], [0017]-[0019] comprising:
a) applying a sealing layer of melamine resin to the top side of the plate,
b) printing a decoration on the sealing layer,
c) applying a protective layer of melamine resin to the decor,
d) pressing the sheet under the action of temperature until the protective layer and the sealing layer melt and bond to one another, including the printed decoration [0006].
Oldorff teaches printing on a primer layer avoids using paper layers/webs, simplifying the handling [0007] and lowering production time and cost [0009]-[0011], [0016]. Oldorff teaches applying said transparent or translucent wear layer at least including a UV hardened substance (Claim 18).
Both Ricciardelli and Oldorff are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to floor panels comprising print layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the top layer of Ricciardelli with the top layer of Oldorff, including a printed pattern disposed on a primer layer and wear layer with UV hardened substance, a known suitable top layer for floor panels, for the benefit of simplifying production and avoiding handling of layers and webs as taught by Oldorff.
While Oldorff does not explicitly teach said wear layer is transparent or translucent, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the UV-hardened wear layer of Oldorff would be transparent or translucent in order to exhibit the printed pattern below as desired by Oldorff.
As to (3), Burt teaches a floor panel, wherein a cover layer is laminated to an extruded substrate via heat welding (Figures 2-4 and Col 3, ln 14-35).
Both Ricciardelli and Burt are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to floor panels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the floor panel of Ricciardelli by substituting the adhesive technique of bonding the top layer to the substrate of Ricciardelli with the welding technique of Burt, a known suitable technique for bonding a substrate and cover layer for a floor panel, to yield the predictable result of joining a substrate and cover layer. Accordingly, Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Oldorf, and Burt would teach the top layer is provided to the flat side of the synthetic material substrate in the absence of an intermediate glue layer.
As to (4), Moriau teaches a floor covering comprising coupling parts in the form of a tongue and groove to provide integrated mechanical locking and prevent drifting apart of two coupled floor panels (Abstract). Moriau teaches several embodiments, using different shaped tongues and grooves (Figures 2-11 and 22-25). Moriau teaches panels comprising a pair of longitudinal opposite edges comprising mechanical coupling means allowing to couple two of said panel along the respective edge (Col 5, ln 28-55 and Col 6, ln 36-Col 7, ln 3), wherein said two of said panel, in a coupled condition, are locked to each other at least in a direction perpendicular to a plane of said two of said panel (Col 7, ln 10-64), said mechanical coupling means being performed as a first tongue and groove (Figures 2-11 and 22-25 and Col 7, ln 10-64), wherein in said coupled condition, at least a pair of horizontally active locking surfaces is formed at least adjacent to the top layers of said coupled panels, said pair of horizontally active locking surfaces being substantially vertical and comprising lateral portions of said top layer (Figures 2-11 and 22-25 and Col 7, ln 10-64).
It would have been obvious ton one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify panel of Ricciardelli, in particular the tongue and groove configuration of said panel, with the configuration of the tongue and groove configuration comprising horizontal locking surfaces of Moriau, a known suitable interlocking configurations for panels, to yield the predictable result of interlocking panels and prevent horizontal movement or separation in the panels.
Regarding claim 12, Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Oldorff, Burt, and Moriau teaches the panel as applied to claim 11, wherein said first groove is flanked by an upper lip and a lower lip, wherein said lower lip extends distally beyond the upper lip (Moriau, Figures 5-7 and 22).
Regarding claim 13, Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Oldorff, Burt, and Moriau
teach the panel as applied to claim 11, wherein at least one or both edges of said pair of longitudinal opposite edges is provided with a recessed edge having a shape of a chamfer (Ricciardelli, Figures 3-5 and [0036]-[0037]).
Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Oldorff, Burt, and Moriau does not teach at least one or both edges of said pair of longitudinal opposite edges is provided with a recessed edge having a shape of a chamfer limited in depth to the thickness of said transparent or translucent layer.
Pervan teaches a floor panel along at least one of its edges is provided with a recessed edge having a depth of the thickness of the transparent layer or translucent layer or smaller (Figures 8A-8C). Pervan teaches flexible sealing material could
be applied during production or during installation between two edges in order to create a decorative effect and/or to prevent moisture to penetrate into the joint [0177]. Pervan teaches a thermoplastic material could be incorporated into the fibres during production
and could be machined to an edge sealing that is integrated into one or both adjacent edges [0177].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the floor panel of Ricciardelli to include a recessed edge sized relative to the transparent or translucent layer as taught in Pervan, for the benefit of providing means for tightly joining the panels and preventing moisture from penetrate the coupling means, a desirable property in floor panels as taught by Pervan.
Regarding claim 14, Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Oldorff, Burt, and Moriau and Burt teaches the panel as applied to claim 11, wherein said panel is rigid (Ricciardelli, [0022]-[0024]).
While Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Oldorff, Burt, and Moriau does not explicitly disclose the panel cannot be wound up, given that the floor panel of Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Oldorff, Burt, and Moriau is identical to the claimed floor panel, the floor panel of Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Oldorff, Burt, and Moriau would have the same rigidity and would not be capable of being wound up.
Regarding claim 15, Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Oldorff, Burt, and Moriau teaches the panel as applied to claim 11, wherein said panel has a thickness of 0.20 inches to about 0.75 inches (5.08 to 19.05 mm) (Ricciardelli, [0023]).
Given that the claimed range is within the range taught in the prior art, the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 17-21 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen (PG-PUB 2006/0032175) in view of Pervan (PG-PUB 2009/0155612).
Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches a panel being rectangular and oblong, having at least a pair of longitudinal opposite edges and a pair of short opposite edges (Figure 5);
said panel comprising a substrate and a top layer located on a flat side of said substrate (Figure 3, [0020]);
wherein said substrate comprises a synthetic material board [0036]-[0038], wherein said board comprises voids at a central part [0039]-[0040];
wherein said top layer includes synthetic material [0100], a motif formed by a printed pattern [0071]-[0073], and a transparent or translucent wear layer [0100], [0104], [0129]-[0130];
said transparent or translucent wear layer at least including a UV hardened substance [0020], [0129]-[0130];
a pair of longitudinal opposite edges of said panel comprises mechanical coupling means allowing to couple two of said panel along the respective edges by means of at least a shifting movement of the respective edges towards each other, wherein said two of said panels (Figure 5), in a coupled condition, are locked to each other at least in a direction perpendicular to a plane of said two of said panel, said mechanical coupling means being performed as a first tongue and a first groove, wherein, in said coupled condition, at least a pair of horizontally active locking surfaces is formed at least adjacent to the top layers of coupled panels (Figure 5 and [0067]-[0070]),
wherein the pair of horizontally active locking surfaces are provided substantially vertical and comprises said printed pattern and wear layer (Figures 5and [0056], [0067]-[0070]).
Chen does not explicitly teach said printed pattern is applied on a synthetic material film. However, Chen teaches below a printer layer can be a primer to enhance the bond to the base core material [0078].
The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP § 2113).
Given that the product of Chen teaches a printer pattern on a primer layer identical to the claimed product, the structure of the printed pattern applied on a synthetic material does not appear to be structurally distinct from the prior art.
Chen does not explicitly teach a wall panel. However, given that the structure of Chen is identical to the claimed panel structure, the panel of Chen would be capable of use as a wall panel.
Chen does not teach:
said substrate has an average density of 450 kilograms per cubic meter to 600 kilograms per cubic meter, wherein said board comprises voids at a central part and a density that is higher than average density at said flat side.
Pervan teaches a high density floor panel comprising a core with a density between 600-1000 kilograms per cubic meter [0100]. Pervan teaches dense floor panels provide improved sound levels [0103], lower thermal conductivity, [0103], impact resistance [0160], [0282], and moisture resistance [0160]. Pervan teaches a density profile could vary along a horizontal plane in the surface or in the core, depending on desired properties of specific portions of the floor panel [0282].
Pervan teaches chemical foaming agents such as sodium bicarbonate,
together with a binder, could for example be used in order to decrease the density
[0276]. Pervan teaches portions of a panel requiring greater density is obtained using increased amount of wear resistant particles and/or binders [0060], [0282].
Both Chen and Pervan are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to floor panels comprising protective layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the substrate density of Chen with the known suitable density as taught by Pervan to yield the predictable result of providing an appropriate substrate density for a floor panel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the flat side of said substrate of Chen with a higher density than the core using the techniques of Pervan for the benefit of providing greater strength and improved moisture resistance and wear resistance as taught by Pervan.
Regarding claim 18, Chen in view of Pervan teaches the panel as applied to claim 17, wherein said first groove is flanked by an upper lip and a lower lip, wherein said lower lip extends distally beyond the upper lip (Chen, Figure 5).
Regarding claim 19, Chen in view of Pervan teaches the process as applied to claim 17.
Chen in view of Pervan does not teach at least one or both edges of said pair of longitudinal opposite edges is provided with a recessed edge having a shape of a chamfer limited in depth to the thickness of said transparent or translucent layer.
Pervan teaches a floor panel along at least one of its edges is provided with a recessed edge having a depth of the thickness of the transparent layer or translucent layer or smaller (Figures 8A-8C). Pervan teaches flexible sealing material could
be applied during production or during installation between two edges in order to create a decorative effect and/or to prevent moisture to penetrate into the joint [0177]. Pervan teaches a thermoplastic material could be incorporated into the fibres during production
and could be machined to an edge sealing that is integrated into one or both adjacent edges [0177].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the floor panel of Chen in view of Pervan to include a recessed edge sized relative to the transparent or translucent layer as taught in Pervan, for the benefit of providing means for tightly joining the panels and preventing moisture from penetrate the coupling means, a desirable property in floor panels as taught by Pervan.
Regarding claim 20, Chen in view of Pervan teaches the panel as applied to claim 17, wherein said panel is rigid (Chen [0038] and [0091]).
While Chen in view of Pervan does not explicitly disclose the panel cannot be wound up, given that the floor panel of Chen in view of Pervan is a rigid panel with mechanical properties suitable use in flooring, the floor panel of Chen in view of Pervan would likely not be capable of being wound up.
Regarding claim 21, Chen in view of Pervan teaches the panel as applied to claim 17, wherein the core has a thickness ranging from 3 mm to 25 mm (Chen, [0063]). Accordingly, the panel including the core would naturally have a thickness of greater than 3 mm to 25 mm.
Given that the panel thickness of Chen in view of Pervan overlaps with the claimed range of greater than 5 mm, the range taught in the prior art would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
Claim 1- 3, 5, 11, and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,031,337. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of claims clearly disclose the claimed matter in the corresponding claims.
Regarding claims 1, Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,031,337 discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 except for
(1) providing a printed pattern performed on a primer layer applied on said synthetic material substrate; and
(2) the top layer is provided to the flat side of the synthetic material substrate in the absence of an intermediate glue layer.
As to (1), Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,031,337 requires a printed PVC film.
Oldorff teaches manufacturing a flooring laminate [0002], [0017]-[0019] comprising:
a) applying a sealing layer of melamine resin to the top side of the plate,
b) printing a decoration on the sealing layer,
c) applying a protective layer of melamine resin to the decor,
d) pressing the sheet under the action of temperature until the protective layer and the sealing layer melt and bond to one another, including the printed decoration [0006].
Oldorff teaches printing on a primer layer avoids using paper layers/webs, simplifying the handling [0007] and lowering production time and cost [0009]-[0011], [0016]. Oldorff teaches applying said transparent or translucent wear layer at least including a UV hardened substance (Claim 18).
Both Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,031,337 and Oldorff are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to floor panels comprising print layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the top layer of Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,031,337 with the top layer of Oldorff, including a printed pattern disposed on a primer layer and wear layer with UV hardened substance, a known suitable top layer for floor panels, for the benefit of simplifying production and avoiding handling of layers and webs as taught by Oldorff.
While Oldorff does not explicitly teach said wear layer is transparent or translucent, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the UV-hardened wear layer of Oldorff would be transparent or translucent in order to exhibit the printed pattern below as desired by Oldorff.
As to (2), Burt teaches a floor panel, wherein a cover layer is laminated to an extruded substrate via heat welding (Figures 2-4 and Col 3, ln 14-35).
Both Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,031,337 and Burt are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to floor panels. Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,031,337 is silent to the technique of integrating the substrate and top layer, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the floor panel of Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,031,337 by with the welding technique of Burt, a known suitable technique for bonding a substrate and cover layer for a floor panel, to yield the predictable result of joining a substrate and cover layer.
Regarding claim 2, 3, and 5 of the instant application, Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,031,337 in view of Oldorff and Burt appear to teach the claimed panel .
Regarding claims 11, Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,031,337 discloses all of the limitations of claim 11 except for:
a top layer provided to the flat side of the synthetic material substrate in the absence of an intermediate glue layer.
Burt teaches a floor panel, wherein a cover layer is laminated to an extruded substrate via heat welding (Figures 2-4 and Col 3, ln 14-35).
Both Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,031,337 and Burt are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to floor panels. Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,031,337 is silent to the technique of integrating the substrate and top layer, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the floor panel of Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,031,337 by with the welding technique of Burt, a known suitable technique for bonding a substrate and cover layer for a floor panel, to yield the predictable result of joining a substrate and cover layer.
Regarding claim 12 of the instant application, Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,031,337 in view of Burt appear to teach the claimed panel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 is 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.
No art rejection has been presented for claim 6. However, statement regarding allowability of claim 6 cannot be made at this time due to the clarity issue present in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Oldorff, Burt, and Moriau does not teach the transparent wear layer includes a vinyl layer having a thickness of 0.2 mm to 1 mm.
Hallenbeck teaches a transparent wear layer includes a vinyl layer having a thickness of 0.051 mm to 0.253 mm.
However, the combination of modifications of Ricciardelli in view of Pervan, Oldorff, and Burt with a vinyl transparent or translucent layer with claimed dimensions would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached on 5712721095. 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.
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745