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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 46-60 in the reply filed on 21 January 2026 is acknowledged.
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 46-60 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 46, the Examiner finds “in particular” on Line 15 to be indefinite because it is unclear if it is a requirement of the claim.
Claim 46 recites the limitation "the Shore A hardness of the primary and/or secondary substrate layer" on Lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 46 recites the limitation "the elastic modulus of the primary and/or secondary substrate later" on Lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 46, the Examiner finds Lines 14-15 to be indefinite because they are directed to the limitation on Lines 7-8 which was not positively recited because of the “at least one of the following properties” on Line 6.
In Claim 46, the Examiner finds Line 16 to be indefinite because it is directed to the limitation on Lines 9-10 which was not positively recited because of the “at least one of the following properties” on Line 6.
In Claim 52, it is unclear what “phr” is. For Examination purposes, the Examiner will assume it stands for percentage per one hundred.
Claim 53 recites the limitation "the stiffness". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 55 recites the limitation "the plane". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 57 recites the limitation "the lower surface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 49, 51 and 55-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(20 as being anticipated by US Patent # 9,573,343 to Pervan.
Regarding claim 46, Pervan teaches in Figure 4d, a panel (1) comprising a primary (5c) [lower part (Column 18, Line 47)] and a secondary (5a) [upper part (Column 18, Line 57)] substrate (5) [core (Column 18, Line 47)] layer, an intermediate layer (5b) (Column 18, Line 49), and a top layer (4) [surface layer (Column 18, Line 22)], wherein the intermediate layer (5b) is located between the primary (5c) and secondary (5a) substrate layer, and wherein the top layer (4) is applied on the secondary substrate layer (5a), wherein the intermediate layer (5b) comprises a foamed thermoplastic material (Column 18, Lines 49-51).
Regarding claim 49, Pervan teaches the intermediate layer comprises a foamed thermoplastic material (Column 18, Lines 49-51) comprising PVC, PP or PE (Column 9, Lines 34-36).
Regarding claim 51, Pervan teaches the secondary substrate layer comprises PVC (Column 11, Line 5).
Regarding claim 55, Pervan teaches in Figure 4d, the panel (1) is provided with coupling means (9 and 10) on at least two opposite edges, wherein on the respective edges, locking (Column 10, Line 36) is brought about at least in a vertical direction (Column 10, Lines 38-39) perpendicular to the plane of the panel (1) and in a horizontal direction (Column 10, Line 40) in the plane of the panels (1) and perpendicular to the edges.
Regarding claim 56, Pervan teaches in Figure 4d, at least one of the edges if provided with a groove (9), wherein this groove (9) is flanked by an upper lip [as seen] and a lower lip (7), wherein the intermediate layer (5b) extends substantially through the upper lip [as seen].
Regarding claim 57, Pervan teaches in Figure 4d, wherein a lower surface of the upper lip [as seen] is formed at least partially in the primary substrate layer (5c).
Regarding claim 58, Pervan teaches in Figure 4d, the upper lip [as seen] is formed substantially in the primary substrate layer (5c), the intermediate layer (5b) and the secondary substrate layer (5a).
Regarding claim 59, Pervan teaches in Figures 4b and 4d, in a coupled state between two adjacent floor panels (1a and 1b), the intermediate layers (5b) [in the arrangement of Figure 4d] of the adjacent panels (1a and 1b) press against each other, wherein a seal [where upper edges of the panels come together] forms along the edges of the panels (1a and 1b).
Regarding claim 60, Pervan teaches in Figure 4b, in a coupled state between two adjacent panels (1a and 1b), the intermediate layers (5b) of the adjacent panels (1a and 1b) do not touch each other, wherein a space forms between the intermediate layers (5b) along the edges of the panels (1a and 1b).
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 47 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 9,573,343 to Pervan.
Regarding claim 47, Pervan teaches that the intermediate layer is softer and more elastic than the secondary substrate layer (Column 18, Lines 47-54) but is silent about it being 10 units lower in Shore A hardness or 10.0% lower in elastic modulus. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the 10 units lower Shore A hardness or the 10.0% lower elastic modulus since the Applicant has not disclosed that such a specification solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that the “lower” intermediate layer of Pervan would perform equally well.
Regarding claim 48, Pervan teaches the intermediate layer comprises a foamed thermoplastic material (Column 18, Lines 49-51) but is silent about its empty cell volume. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify the claimed empty cell volume since the Applicant has not disclosed that such an arrangement solves any stated problem or is of any particular purpose and it appears that Pervan’s intermediate layer would perform equally well with sound damping (Column 18, Lines 53-54).
Claims 50 and 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent # 9,573,343 to Pervan in view of US Patent # 11,691,394 to Rosbrook.
Regarding claim 50, Pervan teaches the primary substrate layer comprises PVC (Column 11, Line 5) and filler [chalk or limestone (Column 15, Line 14)]; wherein the filler has a concentration between 10-30 wt% and the PVC has a concentration between 40-60 wt% which is outside the specified ranges. However, Rosbrook teaches a plank core of polyvinylchloride (PVC) powder from 20% to and including 40% by weight, extra-fine calcium carbonate (CaCO3) from 60% to and including 80% by weight (Column 2, Lines 48-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the floor panel of Pervan with the floor panel of Rosbrook with a reasonable expectation of success because Rosbrook teaches a floor plank with a PVC and calcium carbonate core create a rigid plank that is thermally stable (Abstract).
Regarding claim 52, Pervan teaches a panel that comprises plasticizers (Column 15, Line 15) but does not teach them in amounts less than 15 phr. However, Rosbrook teaches using plasticizer less than 15 phr (Column 2, Lines 53-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the floor panel of Pervan with the floor panel of Rosbrook with a reasonable expectation of success because Rosbrook teaches 3% or less plasticizer, if more was used, the floor panel would become too soft and flexible.
Regarding claims 53-54, Pervan teaches a panel but does not each increasing the stiffness of the panel by including calcium carbonate as filler. However, Rosbrook teaches a plank core of polyvinylchloride (PVC) powder from 20% to and including 40% by weight, extra-fine calcium carbonate (CaCO3) from 60% to and including 80% by weight (Column 2, Lines 48-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the floor panel of Pervan with the floor panel of Rosbrook with a reasonable expectation of success because Rosbrook teaches a floor plank with a PVC and calcium carbonate core create a rigid plank that is thermally stable (Abstract).
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