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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 21 July 2026 has been entered.
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 1-13 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 8: in claim 1, lines 5-6, the mixture is claimed as consisting of main materials and supplementary materials, i.e. excluding other materials. However, in lines 10-12, the claim recites the mixture comprises 40 parts PVC and at least 40 parts calcium carbonate, i.e. not excluding other materials. This conflicting claim language makes the scope of the claimed mixture unclear as to whether materials not recited as part of the mixture are excluded. A similar problem is found in claim 8.
Regarding claims 5-6 and 11-12: in claim 5, line 1, it is unclear if “a stabilizer” is referencing the stabilizer recited in parent claim 1, line 10. The examiner suggests --said [[a]] stabilizer--. A similar problem is found in claim 11. A similar problem is also found in claims 6 and 12 with respect to “a toughener”.
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 1-2 and 5-7 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 claimed supplementary materials of the mixture, the 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 and includes ratios of 40 to 80 parts calcium carbonate filler to 40 parts PVC (i.e. 100 to 200 parts filler per 100 parts PVC is within the above noted range taught by Drewes and clearly corresponds to 40 to 80 parts calcium carbonate to 40 parts PVC). 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 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 provide 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 3-4 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meersseman in view of Drewes, Raymond and Lozach as applied to claims 1-2 and 5-7 above, and further in view of Peng (CN 102796414 A, referencing attached machine translation).
Regarding claims 3-4, Raymond was applied above for suggesting the use of ground calcium carbonate as the calcium carbonate filler in Meersseman. Raymond does not recite a sedimentation volume of the calcium carbonate filler. However, it is know that ground calcium carbonate useful as a filler has a sedimentation (settling) volume of 1.1 to 1.4 mL/g. See Peng (paragraphs 37-38). 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 the modified method of Meersseman because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use known suitable ground calcium carbonate filler which naturally has such property, as evidenced by Peng, or alternatively because Peng provides the above noted evidence that ground calcium carbonate filler typically has a sedimentation volume in the claimed range.
Claims 8-13 are satisfied for the reasons provided above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the references do not teach a high amount of PVC and calcium carbonate filler and an low amount of supplementary materials. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As to amounts of PVC and calcium carbonate filler, Meersseman is directed to a PVC foam substrate flooring panel or board with high stiffness (paragraph 15). Meersseman teaches calcium carbonate filler (paragraph 22, chalk is calcium carbonate), but does not recite a particular amount of filler. Accordingly, the examiner maintains the person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the prior art for suitable quantities of PVC and calcium carbonate. 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). Thus Drews provides evidence that the claimed amounts of PVC and calcium carbonate fall within ranges known in the art. As to amounts of supplemental materials, 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. Meersseman does not require additional materials which would fall outside the 15% claimed range. As detailed above, Raymond and Drewes were applied for suggesting supplement materials in amounts which total well within the 15% claimed range. Accordingly, the examiner maintains these claimed limitations have been satisfied.
Applicant argues that Drewes teaches substantial optional additives including plasticizers. However, as acknowledged by Applicant, these additives are optional. See Drewes (column 11, lines 3-17). Accordingly, the examiner maintains that amounts within the claimed ranges are satisfied for the reasons detailed above.
Applicant argues Drewes teaches plastisols. However, as noted above the plasticizer is not required in Drewes. In any event, the primary reference is to Meersseman, which clearly teaches extrusion. Drewes was relied upon for suggesting a filler loading and supplemental materials provided at amounts in the claimed ranges. With respect to extrusion, the primary referenced to Meersseman teaches extrusion. Drewes does not provide any teaching that extrusion should not be used, nor has Applicant pointed to any.
Applicant teaches Raymond suggests lower filler loading. In response, Applicant has used a known filler loading, as suggested by Drewes for the reasons detailed above. The rejection is based on a combination of references. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The arguments directed to sedimentation volume are not persuasive in view of the newly applied reference to Peng.
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
Prosecution Insights