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 .
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meersseman (US 2013/0067842) in view of Drewes (US 5519077), Raymond (US 2014/0343179) and Lozach (US 4049760).
Regarding claim 1, Meersseman teaches a method for manufacturing a flooring, said flooring comprising a board as a substrate, and a PVC layer adhered above said substrate, wherein said PVC layer comprises a PVC color film layer and a PVC wear-resistance layer covering said PVC color film layer (paragraph 2, 10, 14, 18-19, 23-24 and 75-76); said method comprising: providing a mixture of main materials, wherein said main materials consist of polyvinyl chloride polymer and calcium carbonate; providing said board by extruding said mixture by means of an extruder (paragraph 49); bonding said PVC color film layer to said board and hot pressing said wear resistance layer to said PVC color film layer (paragraphs 18-19, 23-24, 76 and 84); providing said substrate with end buckles and side buckles allowing connection to adjacent floorings (paragraphs 11 and 27; Figure 2).
Meersseman differs from claim 1 in that:
i. Meersseman does not teach the mixture comprises 40 parts by weight of polyvinyl chloride polymer and at least 40 parts by weight of calcium carbonate.
ii. Meersseman does not teach the mixture comprises supplementary materials comprising one or more of a foaming agent, a foam regulator, a toughener, a lubricant and a stabilizer, wherein a total amount of said supplementary materials in said mixture is less than 15% of a total amount of said main materials.
iii. Meersseman does not teach conveying said mixture into a mold for shaping.
iv. Meersseman does not recite the calcium carbonate comprises mechanically prepared calcium carbonate.
(i) Meersseman is directed to a PVC foam substrate flooring panel or board with high stiffness (paragraph 15). As noted above, Meersseman teaches calcium carbonate filler (paragraph 22, chalk is calcium carbonate), but does not recite a particular amount of filler. In the related art of rigid PVC foams, Drewes suggests calcium carbonate filler and a wide range of filler content of 5 to 200 parts filler per 100 parts PVC (column 11, lines 3-27; column 21, lines 45-51). The indication of blowing agents in Drewes (column 11, line 13) clearly indicates the formation of foams and foam is explicitly recited (column 21, line 48). It is noted that the currently claimed amounts indicate the calcium carbonate is provided at equal or greater amount compared to the PVC. Meersseman’s range clearly overlaps with the claimed range in terms of the relative amounts of PVC and calcium carbonate. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Meersseman because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a known suitable filler content, as suggested by Drewes.
(ii) As noted above, Meersseman is directed to a PVC foam substrate flooring panel or board with high stiffness (paragraph 15). Also as noted above, Meersseman recites extruding. In the art of manufacturing rigid PVC foam materials by extrusion, Raymond suggests supplemental additives such as foaming agent in an amount of about 0.6 parts per 100 parts of PVC (paragraphs 2, 21, 31). This corresponds to roughly 0.3% or less of a total amount of said main materials since the main materials are roughly half or less PVC. Alternatively or additionally, Raymond suggests addition of 2 to 6 parts polyacrylate impact modifier per 100 parts of PVC for improved impact strength, which satisfies this a toughener (paragraphs 114-116 and 159). This corresponds to roughly 1 to 3% or less of a total amount of said main materials since the main materials are roughly half or less PVC. Alternatively or additionally, Raymond suggests addition of 2 to 6 parts stabilizer per 100 parts of PVC (paragraph 114), corresponding to 1 to 3% or less of a total amount of said main materials. Alternatively or additionally, Raymond suggests addition of 0.5 to 2 parts lubricant per 100 parts of PVC (paragraph 114), which corresponds to 0.25 to 1% or less of a total amount of said main materials. Alternatively or additionally, Drewes suggests calcium stearate or other metal soaps for stabilizing PVC compositions, the metal soap provided at about 0.05 to 5 parts per 100 parts PVC (column 13, line 2 to column 14, line 8). This corresponds to roughly 0.025 to 2.5% of a total amount of said main materials. Any one or more of these additives satisfies the claimed additional supplementary materials in the mixture and even adding the foaming agent, toughener, stabilizer and lubricant provides considerably less than 15% of a total amount of the main materials. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in the modified method of Meersseman because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a known suitable amount of foaming agent for foaming, a known suitable amount of toughener for improved impact strength, and/or a known suitable amount of other known additives such as stabilizer and/or lubricant, in accordance with the teachings of Raymond, and/or because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a known suitable amount of stabilizer in accordance with the teachings of Drewes.
(iii) As noted above, Meersseman recites extruding, but does not recite the claimed conveying to a mold for shaping. However, such is known in the art of foam extruding to control the shape of the foam extrudate. See Lozach (Figure 12; column 1, lines 37-43; column 6, lines 32-46). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Meersseman because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to control the shape of the foam extrudate in a known manner, as suggested by the teachings of Lozach.
(iv) As noted above, Meersseman teaches calcium carbonate filler, but does not recite the calcium carbonate comprises mechanically prepared calcium carbonate. Raymond teaches that ground calcium carbonate is a suitable calcium carbonate filler for rigid foam products formed by extrusion, including PVC (paragraphs 2, 23, 28, 55-57, 71 and 133). Ground calcium carbonate is naturally prepared by the mechanical process of grinding. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Meersseman because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a known suitable calcium carbonate filler as Meersserman’s calcium carbonate filler, as suggested by the teachings of Raymond. Raymond also suggests addition of the metal soap calcium stearate as a lubricant (paragraph 125-126).
Regarding claim 2, Raymond suggests the calcium carbonate may be ground calcium carbonate, thus satisfying this limitation as applied above (paragraphs 23 and 28).
Regarding claims 3-4, ground calcium carbonate as suggested by Raymond has a sedimentation volume which falls within and/or overlaps with these claimed ranges. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. This is consistent with Applicant’s disclosure (see Applicant’s published Application, paragraph 24).
Regarding claims 5, while a metal soap stabilizer is not recited by Meersseman, Raymond suggests the addition of the metal soap calcium stearate in an amount of 0.5 to 2 parts per 100 parts PVC (paragraph 12). This corresponds to roughly 0.25 to 1% of a total amount of said main materials and thus still falls well within the less than 15% of supplementary materials required by parent claim 1. Calcium stearate is a stabilizer, as evidenced by Drewes. See Drewes (column 13, line 2 to column 14, line 8). Alternatively, Drewes suggests calcium stearate or other metal soaps for stabilizing PVC compositions, the metal soap provided at about 0.05 to 5 parts per 100 parts PVC (column 13, line 2 to column 14, line 8). This corresponds to roughly 0.025 to 2.5% of a total amount of said main materials and thus still falls well within the less than 15% of supplementary materials required by parent claim 1. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Meersseman because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide such additive in an amount suggested by Raymond, thereby naturally providing a stabilizing effect as evidenced by Drewes, or because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to suitable stabilizing of the PVC as suggested by Drewes.
Regarding claims 6-7, while not recited by Meersseman, as noted above, Raymond suggests addition of 2 to 6 parts polyacrylate impact modifier for improved impact strength, which satisfies this limitation (paragraphs 114-116 and 159). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Meersseman because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a known suitable amount of impact modifier additive which satisfies this limitation, as suggested by the teachings of Raymond.
Claims 8-13 are satisfied for the reasons provided above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to argue the supplemental materials constitute all materials in the mixture which are not PVC or calcium carbonate. Applicant further appears to argue that the total of such supplemental materials must not exceed 15% of the total amount of the PVC and calcium carbonate, i.e. the main materials. The claims are not commensurate in scope with these arguments. There is no language which requires the PVC and calcium carbonate add up to a certain percentage of the overall mixture. The claimed supplemental materials are listed in the alternative and thus are satisfied by any one of the recited materials. Additional materials are not excluded and need not be considered part of the “supplemental materials”. The examiner must give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation. The plain language of the supplemental material limitations requires no more than one of the listed supplemental materials provided at less than 15% of a total amount of the main materials.
Applicant argues PVC and calcium carbonate dominate the composition. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons provided above. As noted above, there is no language which requires the PVC and calcium carbonate add up to a certain percentage of the overall mixture.
Applicant argues Drewes was cited for rigid PVC foams. In response, the primary reference to Meersseman is directed to a method which uses a rigid PVC substrate. Drewes was relied upon for suggesting an amount of calcium carbonate filler or metal soap filler. Drewes clearly teaches rigid formulations may be provided (column 21, line 45).
Applicant argues Raymond teaches lower filler amount than claimed. In response, the rejection is based on a combination of references. As noted above, Drewes was applied to suggest the claimed amount of filler is known in the PVC art.
Regarding claims 3-4, 8 and 10, Applicant argues Raymond does not teach a sedimentation volume. In response, Raymond clearly teaches ground calcium carbonate produced in accordance with grinding methods known in the art (paragraphs 68-69). It is also clear from Raymond that calcium carbonate comes in two types, ground or precipitated. The ground, i.e. mechanically prepared, calcium carbonate suggested by Raymond is the same type of material used by Applicant in one embodiment, and thus would be expected to have the same properties, i.e. sedimentation volume. This is evidenced by Applicant’s own specification which teaches that calcium carbonate prepared mechanically has a sedimentation volume of 1.1 to 1.9 mL/g (Applicant’s published application, paragraph 24). The claims are not patentable simply because Applicant has measured a property of the known material. The examiner respectfully disagrees that Applicant’s specification has been used improperly. The specification has only been used to evidence that the sedimentation volume of mechanically prepared calcium carbonate falls within or overlaps the claimed ranges. Applicant has not provided any evidence or argument to the contrary.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights