DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the restriction of Claims 66-76 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The restriction of Claims 66-76 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections of Claims 46-60 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the Prior Art rejections have been considered but are moot because the amendments have necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 46, 47, 51, 53, 66 and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent # 12,011,905 to Baert.
Regarding claim 46, Baert teaches in Figure 4, a panel (401) (Column 15, Line 57) having at least two opposite edges (108a/108b, Fig 1b) [coupling parts (Column 15, Lines 31-32)] and comprising a primary (402) [core layer (Column 15, Line 58)] and a secondary (403b) [upper acoustic impedance layer (Column 15, Lines 63-64)] substrate layers, an intermediate layer (404) [compressible layer (Column 15, Line 59)], and a top layer (403a) [décor layer (Column 15, Line 63)], wherein the intermediate layer (404) is located between the primary (402) and secondary (403b) substrate layers, wherein the intermediate layer (404) and the secondary substrate layer (403b) are glued together [attached (Column 7, Lines 34-35)]; and wherein the top layer (403a) is applied (Column 6, Lines 53-55) on the secondary substrate layer (403b), wherein the intermediate layer (404) comprises a foamed thermoplastic material [open cell foam (Column 3, Lines 62-64)] of ethyl vinyl acetate, polyethylene or polypropylene (Columns 3-4, Lines 65-2), wherein the panel (401) is provided with coupling parts [the opposite edges 108a/108b] on the at least two opposite edges (108a/108b), wherein in a coupled state of a first and second such panel on the opposite edges, locking is brought about at least in a vertical direction (Column 10, Lines 56-59) perpendicular to a plane of the panels and at least in a horizontal direction (Column 10, Lines 56-59) in the plane of the first and second such panels and perpendicular to the edges, wherein at least one of the two opposite edges is provided with a groove (Column 11, Line 5), wherein the groove is flanked by an upper lip and a lower lip (Column 11, Lines 7-8), wherein the intermediate layer (404) extends substantially through the upper lip, wherein the upper lip is formed substantially in the primary substrate layer (402), the intermediate layer (404), and the secondary substrate layer (403b), wherein a lower surface of the upper lip is formed at least partially in the primary substrate layer (402), wherein the intermediate layer (404) comprises a material with a substantially open cell structure (Column 3, Lines 63-64 and Column 12, Lines 57-58); and the intermediate layer has a Shore A hardness [75 (Column 2, Lines 30-31)] 10 units or more lower than a Shore A hardness of the primary and/or secondary substrate layer [46 shore D (Column 5, Lines 9-10) which equates to 75-95 Shore A (Column 3, Lines 4-5) that would be 10 units above the intermediate layer].
Regarding claim 47, Baert teaches the intermediate layer has a Shore A hardness [75 (Column 2, Lines 30-31)] 10 units or more lower than a Shore A hardness of the primary and/or secondary substrate layer [46 shore D (Column 5, Lines 9-10) which equates to 75-95 Shore A (Column 3, Lines 4-5) that would be 10 units above the intermediate layer] and the intermediate layer has an elastic modulus [3 Mpa (Column 3, Lines 32-37] at least 10% lower than an elastic modulus [1800 Mpa (Column 2, Line 14)] of the secondary substrate layer.
Regarding claim 51, Baert teaches the secondary substrate layer comprises PVC (Column 5, Lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 53, Baert teaches the secondary substrate layer is configured to increase a stiffness of the panel by comprising calcium carbonate as a filler (Column 5, Lines 32-35) and having a thickness of at least 2.0mm (Column 4, Lines 45-47).
Regarding claim 66, Baert teaches that the intermediate layer comprises ethylene vinyl acetate (Columns 3-4, Lines 65-1), polyethylene (Columns 3-4, Lines 65-2) or polypropylene (Column 3, Lines 65-67), wherein each of the primary substrate layer and the secondary substrate layer comprise PVC (Column 5, Lines 22-25 and Column 9, Line 4) and calcium carbonate as a filler (Column 5, Lines 30-35 and Column 9, Lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 72, Baert teaches the thickness of the intermediate layer is between 0.5 and 2.0 mm (Column 4, Lines 18-19).
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 48, 50, 52, 54, 59 and 74-76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 12,011,905 to Baert in view of Chinese Patent # 110325362 to Baert.
Regarding claim 48, Baert teaches a panel with a foamed thermoplastic material but is silent about its empty cell volume. However, Baert teaches in his Chinese Patent, a foamed thermoplastic with an empty cell volume between 10 and 80 vol% [20-50% (Page 6)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Baert’s two patents and have a reasonable expectation of success because in order to have a closed cell thermoplastic, the cells should be closed [at least 20-50%] in the material.
Regarding claim 50, Baert teaches the primary substrate layer comprises PVC (Column 9, Line 4) and calcium carbonate as a filler (Column 9, Lines 4-7) but does not teach the claimed concentration of PVC to filler. However, Baert teaches in his Chinese Patent, the claimed concentration of PVC to filler (Page 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Baert’s two patents and have a reasonable expectation of success in order to achieve the desired material properties of the panel.
Regarding claim 52, Baert teaches a panel with a second substrate layer but does not teach plasticizers in the amount of less than 15 phr. However, Baret teaches in his Chinese Patent, a PVC layer that is free of plasticizer (Page 4) [thus being less than 15 phr]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Baert’s two patents and have a reasonable expectation of success because the absence of plasticizer would make the second substrate layer more rigid.
Regarding claim 54, Baert teaches the secondary substrate layer comprises calcium carbonate as a filler (Column 5, Lines 33-35) and wherein the secondary substrate layer comprises PVC (Column 5, Lines 22-24) but does not teach the claimed concentration of PVC to filler. However, Baert teaches in his Chinese Patent, the claimed concentration of PVC to filler (Page 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Baert’s two patents and have a reasonable expectation of success in order to achieve the desired material properties of the panel.
Regarding claim 59, Baert teaches a panel but does not teach a seal is formed in a coupled state of two panels. However, Baert teaches in his Chinese Patent, in a coupled state between two adjacent panels (Page 5), the intermediate layers of the adjacent panels press against each other [interlock (Page 7)], wherein a seal forms along the edges of the panels [the assembled panels create a waterproof floor (Page 6)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Baert’s two patents and have a reasonable expectation of success because interlocking the panels creates a waterproof floor (Page 6).
Regarding claim 74, Baert teaches a panel with opposite edges but does not show the opposite edges comprise a chamfer. However, Baert teaches in Figure 2 of his Chinese Patent, opposite edges comprise a chamfer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Baert’s two patents and have a reasonable expectation of success in order to achieve a desired visual appearance for the panel.
Regarding claim 75, Baert teaches a floor panel but is silent about the movement of the floor panels to join them together. However, Baert teaches in Figures 1 and 2 of his Chinese Patent, a floor panel (1) with coupling parts (7 and 8) on opposite edges (6a and 6c) are configured such that a first and a second such floor panel can be brought in a coupled state by means of a rolling movement and/or a sliding movement substantially parallel to the plane of the first and second such floor panels [oblique entering motion (Page 7)], and wherein the floor panel (1) is provided with coupling parts on at least a further pair of opposite edges (6b and 6d), wherein the coupling parts (7 and 8) on the further pair of opposite edges (6b and 6d) comprise a male part (7) and a female part (8), wherein the male part (7) is formed by a downward directed locking element (20b) comprised on a lip of an upper hook shaped portion and wherein the female part (8) is in the form of a recess defined proximally from an upward directed locking element (20a) comprised on a lip of a lower hook-shaped portion, wherein the coupling parts (7 and 8) of the further pair of edges (6b and 6d) are configured for coupling by engaging the male part in the female part (Page 7), wherein in a coupled state a locking is produced at least in a direction in the plane of the panels and perpendicular to the coupled edges (Page 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Baert’s two patents and have a reasonable expectation of success in order to avoid free movement of the panel interconnection (Page 7).
Regarding claim 76, Baert teaches in his two Patents, a panel. Furthermore, Baert teaches in the US Patent in Figure 4, the intermediate layer (404) has a thickness [0.8-2mm (Column 4, Lines 17-19)] that is thinner than a thickness of the secondary substrate layer (403b) 0.05-2mm (Column 7, Lines 31-33)].
Claims 49 and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 12,011,905 to Baert.
Regarding claim 49, Baert teaches a panel made of foamed thermoplastic material but does not teach it is IXPE. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use IXPE for the foamed thermoplastic material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Regarding claim 73, Baert teaches in Figure 4, a minimum thickness of the primary substrate layer (402) in the upper lip and under the intermediate layer (404) in a section wherein a coupled state of an adjacent first and second floor panel a tongue (Column 11, Lines 6-7) of the first panel comes into contact with the upper lip (Column 11, Line 7) of the second panel but is silent as to the exact dimension of the minimum thickness. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed minimum thickness since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 12,011,905 to Baert in view of US Patent # 10,844,610 to Boucke et al.
Regarding claim 60, Baert teaches a panel but is silent about if the intermediate layers touch. However, Boucke teaches in Figure 4b, an intermediate part (420) (Column 35, Lines 39-40) wherein Figure 5c shows the intermediate parts would not touch, thus forming a space (430) [recess (Column 34, Lines 26-27)] between the intermediate layers along the edges of the panels. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Baert with Boucke and have a reasonable expectation of success because Boucke teaches the recesses create clearance or gap for the accumulation of dust (Column 9, Lines 26-30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J TRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)270-3657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-2pm EST.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/ANDREW J TRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights