DETAILED ACTION
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 98 and 99 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.
Claim 98 recites “the surface of the panel”. Given that panel comprises multiple layers and there are multiple surfaces of a panel, it is not clear which surface of which layer the limitation is being referred. Additionally, the limitation “the surface” lacks antecedent basis. Examiner assumes any disclosure would meet the limitation. Clarification is requested.
Claim 99 recites the limitation “consists or comprises of”. The scope of the claim is unclear given that the group is both closed and open. Examiner suggests deleting “comprises of” or “consists of” for clarity. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner considers the limitation to read “comprises of”.
Regarding claim 99, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 83, 85, 88-89, and 100 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tian et al. (US 20160289979).
Tian discloses scratch resistant coatings for flooring coverings. Concerning claims 83 and 85, Tian discloses the scratch resistant coating comprises an acrylate-based resin matrix in which hard particles are dispersed, wherein the particles have an average particle diameter of 2 to 50 microns and the thickness of the coating is 4 to 40 microns with a coating thickness to average particle diameter ratio of 0.6:1 to 2:1 (para. 0013-0056). With respect to claims 88 and 89, the hard particles are found at a content of 6 to 12 wt% and have a Mohs hardness of 9 (para. 0036). In regards to claim 100, the surface of the coating forms a texture and would meet the limitations as claimed (FIG. 1).
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 86, 87, and 91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (US 20160289979).
With respect to claims 86 and 87, the particle size distribution can be narrow or wide (para. 0041). As such, the particle size distribution as claimed would be encompassed and included by the disclosure of Tian. Concerning claim 91, Tian discloses the scratch resistant coating can be a multilayer coating with the outer coating being the wear resistant coating as disclosed above and can include further coatings wherein one can contain particles having a Mohs hardness of 6 (para. 0005-0006 and 0050).
Claim 90 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (US 20160289979) in view of Shin Etsu Silane Coupling Agents.
Tian discloses the above but is silent to coating the particles with a silane.
The Shin Etsu Silane Coupling Agents sheet discloses that treating filler particles with a silane by coating allows for the filler and resin to bond thereby increasing the mechanical properties of the resulting composite (pp. 3-5). As such, in the interest of improving at least mechanical properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to treated the particles with a silane.
Claims 92-99 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (US 20160289979) in view of Li et al. (US 20170152666) with evidence from Cadogan et al. (Ullman’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry).
Tian discloses the above, including further layers to form a flooring plank. However, Tian is silent to the claimed decorative layer, further layer material, and material for the substrate.
Li discloses a flooring plank having a UV coating layer, a surface protection layer below the UV coating layer that is closer to the substrate, and a decorative layer, wherein the surface protection layer has a thickness of 0.05 to 1.5 mm (or 50 microns to 1500 microns) and is formed from a hard PVC having a Shore D hardness value of 50-85 (para. 0038). As evidenced by Cadogan, as the plasticizer content increases, the softer PVC become, wherein this is a linear relationship (Cadogan; p. 602, Figure 2). As such, the plasticizer content for this layer would include and encompass the claimed range. The surface protection layer allows for improving the stiffness of the laminate (para. 0038). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the surface protection layer as disclosed by Li below the wear coating of Tian for the above stated reasons. Li further discloses a decorative layer disposed below the surface protection layer that provides an image, pattern, and texture (para. 0039). This disclosure would also meet the limitation of claim 98. As such, in order to provide an image, pattern, and texture, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a decoration layer for Tian in the positioning as claimed. Regarding claim 99, the substrate or base material is polymer layer that allows for improved stiffness and performance in low temperatures for the laminate (para. 0040-0043). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above base layer as the substrate of Tian.
Claim 101 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian et al. (US 20160289979) in view of Ricciardelli (US 20020189183).
Tian discloses the above but is silent to the interlocking structure as claimed. Ricciardelli discloses an interlocking decorative tile having the interlocking structure as claimed, wherein such a structure allows for adhesive joining of staggered boards (abstract; FIGS. 1-5; para. 0024-0037). As such, in order provide joining without adhesives, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the planks of Tian with the interlocking structure of Ricciardelli.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 84 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art is silent to the acrylate varnish coat comprising the dendritic oligomer with an acrylate functionality of 5 or higher as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tian et al. (US 20160289980) and Martensson (EP 1304427).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783