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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siche (US 2012/0114931) in view of Baum (US 3,382,215).
Siche teaches a laminate comprising a PVC layer including inorganic filler coated with a barrier layer including PVOH (abstract).
Siche teaches adhesion between the PVOH and the PVC is a problem, but does not teach the PVOH should comprise polyvinyl alcohol and a polyisocyanate derivative obtained through reaction of a polyisocyanate with hydroxyl groups of the polyvinyl alcohol. However, Baum teaches reacting olefin polymer with organic polyisocyanates (abstract). Specifically, Baum teaches hydroxyl containing olefin polymer may be reacted with polyisocyanate provides marked adhesional improvements (col 2, lines 42+). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to react the hydroxyl groups of the PVOH layer taught in Siche with an organic polyisocyanate. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase adhesion between the PVC and the polyvinyl chloride layers.
With regards to claim 2, Baum teaches the polyisocyanate derivative is a crosslinker of polyvinyl alcohol (col 2, lines 48+).
With regards to claim 3, Siche teaches the PVC based layer may comprise inorganic filler (abstract).
With regards to claim 4, the PVOH of Siche is understood to be fully saponified since it is taught to be PVOH. Alternatively, the Elvanol 71-30 and 90-50 (0045) product disclosed in Siche are known to be fully saponified.
With regards to claims 5-7, Baum teaches the polyisocyanate derivative comprises a derivative of at least one of: toluene diisocyanate, methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, and p-phenylene diisocyanate and methylene dicyclohexyl diisocyanate (col 5, liners 25+). Said species are understood to read on the structures of claims 5 and 6.
With regards to claims 8-10, Siche teaches the surface covering (title) comprises a floor covering (0022) or wall covering (0036).
With regards 11, Siche teaches the PVC-based layer may comprise recycled PVC (0004), herein understood to read up to 100% of the overall PVC content. Otherwise, said limitation is understood to be a method limitation and does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention as recycled PVC is compositionally identical to virgin PVC.
With regards to claim 13, Baum teaches the polyisocyanate derivative may be used in virtually any concentration in the composition (col 7, lines 23+). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the amount of polyisocyanate utilized in the PVOH layer in order to optimize the properties of the resulting composition, including the adhesion thereof.
With regards to claim 14, Siche in view Baum teaches a surface covering comprising at least one of a floor covering and a wall covering (see claims 8-10 above), wherein the polyvinyl alcohol has a degree of hydrolysis of not less than 98 mol% (claim 4 above), and wherein the polyisocyanate derivative is obtained through reaction of a polyisocyanate having an isocyanate functionality in the range from 2.5 to 6 with hydroxyl groups of the polyvinyl alcohol (claim 13 above).
With regards to claim 20, Siche teaches a laminate comprising a PVC layer including inorganic filler coated with a barrier layer including PVOH (abstract). Siche teaches adhesion between the PVOH and the PVC is a problem, but does not teach the PVOH should comprise polyvinyl alcohol and a polyisocyanate derivative obtained through reaction of a polyisocyanate with hydroxyl groups of the polyvinyl alcohol. However, Baum teaches reacting olefin polymer with organic polyisocyanates (abstract). Specifically, Baum teaches hydroxyl containing olefin polymer may be reacted with polyisocyanate provides marked adhesional improvements (col 2, lines 42+). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to react the hydroxyl groups of the PVOH layer taught in Siche with an organic polyisocyanate. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase adhesion between the PVC and the polyvinyl chloride layers. Baum teaches the polyisocyanate derivative is a crosslinker of polyvinyl alcohol (col 2, lines 48+). Baum teaches hepolyisocyanate derivative comprises a derivative of at least one of: toluene diisocyanate, methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, and p-phenylene diisocyanate and methylene dicyclohexyl diisocyanate (col 5, liners 25+). Said species are understood to read on the structures of claim 20.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siche (US 2012/0114931) in view of Baum 3,382,215), as applied to claims 1-11, 13, 14, and 20 above, and
further in view of Xue et al (US 2024/0043707)
Siche in view of Baum is relied upon as above but does not teach the PVC-based layer may comprise a functionalization with hydroxyl groups. However, Xue teaches vinyl chloride polymers may be functionalized with hydroxyl groups in order to improve solubility of the polymer (0009). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to functionalize the PVC of Siche with hydroxyl groups in order to control the solubility and processing thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
With regards to claims 1-11, 13, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being allegedly unpatentable over Siche (US 2012/0114931, hereafter "Siche") in view of Baum (US 3,382,215. Hereafter "Baum"), Applicant notes that Baum proposes modifying olefin polymers but argues PVOH (as taught in Siche) is not an olefin polymer(as disclosed in Baum). Applicant argues Baum defines "olefin polymer" (Baum, Column 1, lines 32-52) and argues PVOH does not fall within Baum's definition of an "olefin polymer." Said argument is noted but is not persuasive. As noted in Baum, the improved physical properties and marked adhesional properties are imparted to “hydroxyl containing olefin polymers by reacting with polyisocyanate.” Thus, hydroxyl containing olefin polymers are within the teachings of Baum. The skilled artisan would appreciate that PVOH is a hydroxyl containing olefin polymer (see US 6,152,889 @ col 3, line 45; teaching “a hydroxyl-group containing olefin such as a vinyl alcohol”); US 6,383,641 @ col 8, lines 7+, teaching “Examples of the hydroxyl group-containing vinyl polymer include copolymers of a monomer containing no hydroxyl group (such as olefin) and a hydroxyl group-containing monomer (such as allylalcohol, vinyl alcohol, hydroxyalkylvinyl ether or hydroxyalkyl(meth)acrylate), and the like”); US 2006/0171980 @(0024) teaching “hydroxy-olefin monomers, such as vinyl alcohol…”). Thus, the examiner maintains the position that the teachings of Baum are relevant to the PVOH of SIche.
With regards to Siche, applicants further argue the reference proposes modifying a PVOH barrier layer specifically to address the problem of adherence of the PVOH on a PVC film. The Examiner proposes reacting the hydroxyl groups of Siche's PVOH layer with an organic polyisocyanate and states that the motivation for doing so would have been to increase adhesion between the PVOH and PVC layers. (Office Action, page 4). Applicant disagrees, arguing, to improve the adhesion between the PVOH
and the polyvinyl chloride layers, Siche proposes to use a silane compound including at least
one amine group. Applicant argues replacing that silane-based adhesion mechanism with the Examiner-
proposed polyisocyanate mechanism would depart from Siche's disclosed approach and, in view of Siche's express criticism of isocyanate-type adhesives in paragraph [0037], would be contrary to Siche's teachings. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as the examiner never took the position that the hat silane-based adhesion mechanism of Siche should be replace; merely modified with the teachings of Baum.
With regards to claims 2-14. Applicant argues said claims are patentable at least by virtue of their dependence from claim 1. Applicant further argues independent claim 20 is patentable for the same reasons discussed above and further recites that the polyisocyanate derivative is a crosslinker of PVOH and has the specified general formula. Said argument is not persuasive for the reasons noted above.
Regarding claim 2, applicant further argues the Examiner states that Baum teaches, at col. 2, lines 48+, that the polyisocyanate derivative is a crosslinker of polyvinyl alcohol. However, Baum does not mention polyvinyl alcohol. Accordingly, Baum fails to disclose that the polyisocyanate is a crosslinker of polyvinyl alcohol. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as Baum teaches the polyisocyanate derivative is a crosslinker of hydroxy containing olefins, which the skilled artisan would understand includes PVOH.
Regarding claim 12, the Office Action further asserts that the normally skilled person would have functionalized the PVC of Siche with hydroxyl groups in order to control the solubility and processing
thereof. (Office action, page 6). Applicant respectfully disagrees arguing Siche does not identify solubility of its PVC-based layer as a problem, and Xue's ink-resin solubility concern is unrelated to Siche's filled PVC surface-covering layer. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as counsel’s argument cannot take the place of evidence; applicants present no evidence supporting the conclusion that Xue's ink-resin solubility concern is unrelated to Siche's filled PVC surface-covering layer. The examiner maintains both references are directed to vinyl chloride polymer compositions, and are, therefore, analogous. Applicant further argues Xue discloses ink jet inks comprising a copolymer of vinyl chloride and a hydroxy functionalized containing monomer, whereas PVC is a homopolymer. Therefore, applicant argues Xue is not applicable to the alleged combination of Siche and Baum. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive for reasons of record. Specifically, Xue teaches vinyl chloride polymers may be functionalized with hydroxyl groups in order to improve solubility of the polymer (0009).
Thus, applicants’ arguments are not persuasive, and the claims remain rejected for reasons of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights