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), Lozach (US 4049760) and Raymond (US 2014/0343179).
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 comprising polyvinyl chloride polymer, calcium carbonate, and a foaming agent (paragraphs 15, 22 and 49); 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 conveying said mixture into a mold for shaping.
iii. 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 provide 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 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.
(iii) 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 Meersseaman’s calcium carbonate filler, as suggested by the teachings of Raymond.
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 claim 5, while not recited by Meersseman, Raymond suggests addition of the metal soap calcium stearate as a lubricant (paragraph 125-126). 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 lubricating additive which satisfies this limitation, as suggested by the teachings of Raymond.
Regarding claims 6-7, while not recited by Meersseman, 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.
Conclusion
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