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 Objections
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the terms PVC, PET, PP, and PS, which are undefined acronyms. These acronyms should include appropriate definitions. Appropriate correction is required.
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 27-41 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 27 recites the phrase “[a] decorative anti-slip floor covering element, in particular a floor panel,” which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the claim is only limited to a decorative anti-slip floor covering element, or if instead, the claim should be viewed as further limited to a floor panel. Paragraph [0015] of the present specification notes that floor covering elements need not be panels, and they can be, for example, a roll of flooring, which adds further ambiguity (i.e., the specification does not provide information which favors a particular interpretation of the present claim). In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to a decorative anti-slip floor covering element. In addition, claim 27 recites the phrases “the textured upper side,” “the decorative floor covering element,” and “said anti-slip substance,” which lack antecedent basis. Claim 27 does not recite a textured upper side (i.e., only an upper side), and it is not clear if the textured upper side should be viewed as equivalent to the claimed upper side, or if it constitutes a separate side. In addition, the claim recites a decorative anti-slip floor covering element as opposed to a decorative floor covering element (i.e., and therefore, the phrase “the decorative floor covering element” lacks antecedent basis). The claim additionally recites a wear-resisting anti-slip substance, but it is not clear if this substance is being referenced by the phrase “the anti-slip substance.” In the interest of compact prosecution, the claimed phrases will be interpreted as directed to “a textured upper side” and the claimed decorative anti-slip floor covering element, respectively. Claim 27 additionally recites the indefinite phrase “main polymer.” The term “main” can be used to describe a particular amount of a substance. For example, there are three polymers in a composition, the “main” polymer may be taken as the polymer which constitutes the highest percent mass of the composition. However, the term “main” could, instead, refer to an amount of polymer past a specific threshold (i.e., the claim states that there may be multiple main polymers due to the phrase “at least one main polymer). Alternatively, “main” could be used to refer to a particular function (i.e., one which “mainly” provides a specific function). It is not clear at what threshold or by what measure a polymer is considered to be a “main polymer.” The present specification does not describe how a person of ordinary skill would determine whether or not a given polymer is a “main” polymer. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to “at least one polymer”.
Claims 28-41 are rejected as indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 27.
Claims 28-40 recite the phrase “[t]he floor covering element,” which is indefinite. Claim 27 is directed, specifically, to a decorative anti-slip floor covering element. The preamble of claims 28-40 recites a structure separate from that of independent claim 27. It is unclear from the claims if the anti-slip function of claim 27 should continue to be read into claims 28-40. In the interest of compact prosecution, claims 28-40 will be interpreted as directed to an anti-slip floor covering element.
Claims 28-29, 31, 35-39 recite the phrase “the anti-slip substance” which lacks antecedent basis. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claims will be interpreted as directed to the wear-resisting anti-slip substance of claim 27.
Claim 29 recites the phrase “the main polymer,” but it is not clear at what threshold or by what measure a polymer is considered to be a “main polymer.” The present specification does not describe how a person of ordinary skill would determine whether or not a given polymer is a “main” polymer. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to a polymer. In addition, claim 29 recites the phrase “an auxiliary polymer deviating from the main polymer of the core,” but it is not clear what is meant by the term “deviating.” It is not clear if the claim requires a specific difference in structure, or if any structural difference is sufficient. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as reciting an additional polymer.
Claim 32 recites the phrase “the anti-slip particles,” but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 27, from which claim 32 depends, does not recite anti-slip particles. It is possible that claim 32 is supposed to depend from claim 31 (which recites anti-slip particles). In the interest of compact prosecution, claim 32 will be interpreted as comprising anti-slip particles.
Claim 33 recites “the particles,” but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation. It is not clear if “the particles” is attempting to reference the anti-slip particles of claim 31. In the interest of compact prosecution, claim 33 will be interpreted as reciting “the anti-slip floor covering element comprising particles, wherein a fraction of the particles”. Claim 33 also recites “preferably a coloured coating and/or a glitter coating,” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the claim requires the claimed coating to be a coloured coating and/or a glitter coating. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to a pigmented coating.
Claim 34 recites the phrase “loosely dispersed,” but it is not clear at what threshold of dispersion a group of anti-slip particles is considered “loosely dispersed.” The present specification provides no guidance as to the meaning of the phrase “loosely dispersed.” In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as specifying dispersed particles. In addition, claim 34 recites the indefinite phrase “preferably throughout the entire core.” It unclear whether or not claim 34 specifically requires a fraction of the anti-slip particles to be dispersed throughout the entire core. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as requiring anti-slip particles which are dispersed throughout at least one zone of the core.
Claim 36 recites the indefinite phrase “preferably composed of the same main polymer”. It is unclear if the claimed polymer layers necessarily must be composed of a same polymer. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as only optionally requiring the claimed at least two polymer layers to be made of a same polymer. In addition, claim 36 recites “in between said polymer layers,” but it is unclear how this phrase should be interpreted if there are three or more polymer layers. The claim recites a singular anti-slip layer, and if there are, for example, three layers, it is unclear between which two of the three layers the anti-slip layer should be present. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as comprising an anti-slip layer. Claim 36 additionally recites “is embedded as anti-slip layer”, which is grammatically incorrect so as to render the claim indefinite. In the interest of compact prosecution, the phrase will be interpreted as “is embedded as an anti-slip layer”.
Claims 37-38 recite the phrase “at least 0.1 mm, preferably at least 0.2 mm, more preferably at least 0.3 mm,” which renders the claims indefinite. It is unclear which of the listed preferable ranges should be followed. Per MPEP 2173.05(c), descriptions of examples and preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than in a single claim. Examples of multiple ranges within the claim which include the term “preferably” have been held to be indefinite. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claims will be interpreted as requiring a protrusion by at least 0.1 mm.
Claim 39 recites the indefinite phrase “in particular anti-slip particles”. It is not clear if the claim requires anti-slip particles, or if instead, any anti-slip substance may be used to meet the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to any anti-slip substance.
Claim 41 recites the indefinite phrase “preferably interconnected”. It is not clear if the claim requires a plurality of floor covering elements which are interconnected. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as only directed to a plurality of floor covering elements.
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 27-29, 31, 33-35, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson (US4,662,972A).
With regards to claim 27, Thompson discloses a non-skid-surfaced panel for flooring (i.e., an anti-slip floor covering element) comprising a first coat of polyurethane 24 depicted as having top and bottom surfaces (i.e., a core provided with an upper side and a lower side, the core comprising at least one main polymer) and a combination of a second coat of polyurethane 35 and a grit material 26 disposed directly on a top surface of the fiber panel 30 (i.e., a decorative top structure affixed directly on the upper side of the core) (Thompson: abstract; col. 4, lines 63-68; col. 5, lines 20-40; Fig. 7). The non-skid-surfaced panel for flooring and its top structure are both considered decorative, since they have the appearance of a walkway (i.e., nearly any structure may be considered “decorative,” and the decorative structure of Thompson is “decorative” in the same manner as the present specification, namely, decorative due to the incorporation of particles) (see above discussion). Thompson further discloses the grit material 26, the grit material providing anti-skid effect and having high hardness, as embedded in the first coat of polyurethane 24 (i.e., a wear-resisting anti-slip substance is at least partially embedded the main polymer), wherein the grit material 26 is depicted as providing a texture to the top surface of the first coat of polyurethane 24 and subsequently, a top surface of the panel for flooring (i.e., the textured upper side of the core at least defines a textured upper surface of the decorative anti-slip floor covering element) (Thompson: Fig. 7).
With regards to claim 28, the grit material is aluminum oxide (i.e., the claimed substance is formed entirely of a mineral material) (Thompson: col. 2, lines 24-32).
With regards to claim 29, the grit material is aluminum oxide (i.e., the claimed substance is formed entirely of a ceramic) (Thompson: col. 2, lines 24-32).
With regards to claim 31, the grit material is aluminum oxide (i.e., particles which, as best understood, provide an anti-slip function) (Thompson: col. 2, lines 24-32).
With regards to claim 33, the grit 26 is depicted as coated with second polyurethane coating 35, which can include color as controlled via selective pigmentation (i.e., the particles are depicted as coated with a pigmented coating) (Thompson: col. 5, lines 37-40).
With regards to claim 34, the particles are depicted as dispersed throughout the entirety of the core (i.e., throughout at least one zone of the core) (Thompson: Fig. 7).
With regards to claim 35, Thompson notes that a top point of each particle of the grit material embedded in the core is left uncovered (i.e., left uncovered by the decorative top structure) (Thompson: col. 5, lines 31-36 Fig. 7).
With regards to claim 41, Thompson discloses multiple of its floor covering elements (i.e., panels) used to form a dock structure (i.e., a decorative anti-slip floor covering) (Thompson: col. 5, lines 4-10).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson as applied to claim 27 above, and with evidentiary support from Panadyne (Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) Technical Data).
With regards to claim 39, Thompson discloses a floor element as applied to claim 27 above, the floor element including anti-slip particles in the form of alumina particles (see above discussion). Panadyne evidences that aluminum oxide has a Moh’s hardness of 9, which is within the claimed range of a minimum Moh’s hardness of 6 (Panadyne: Aluminum Oxide Technical Data, “Hardness”).
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 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson as applied to claim 27 above, and in further view of Pervan (US2014/0220318A1).
With regards to claim 30, Thompson discloses a floor element as applied to claim 27 above (see above discussion). It is unclear if the decorative top structure of Thompson, which comprises a polyurethane coating, is at least partially transparent or translucent. (see above discussion).
Pervan is directed to a protective overlay with wear resistant particles applied to a building panel such as a floor or furniture component (Pervan: abstract; para. [0002]-[0003]). According to Pervan, wood floors which are pre-finished include several transparent layers, including polyurethane layers comprising wear-resistant particles (i.e., transparent polyurethane layers are well-known in the art of flooring) (Pervan: para. [0015]). It is noted that the floor element of Thompson maybe used as a floor element, and as applied previously, Thompson includes a polyurethane layer comprising grit having high hardness (i.e., wear-resistant particles) (Thompson: abstract; claim 1). Pervan teaches such materials as providing improved wear and stain resistance (Pervan: para. [0017]). As best understood, transparency is associated with a higher quality surface and allows for the placement of a decorative print layer underneath (Pervan: para. [0010] and [0076]). Thompson and Pervan are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of wood flooring panels comprising polyurethane protective coatings. A person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have ensured that the polyurethane in the decorative top structure of Thompson is transparent, as transparent polyurethane coatings are well-known in the art of flooring materials (Pervan: para. [0015]). In addition, such modification would have been obvious from the viewpoint of providing improved wear and stain resistance, improved surface quality, and the ability to provide a decorative print layer underneath the polyurethane coating of Thompson (Pervan: para. [0010], [0017], and [0076]).
Claims 32 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson as applied to claim 27 above, and with evidentiary support from Millipore Sigma (Particle Size Conversion Table), hereinafter MS.
With regards to claim 32, Thompson discloses a floor element as applied to claim 27 above, the floor panel comprising grit particles (see above discussion). Thompson discloses a size range for the grit particles of between No. 30 mesh and No. 60 mesh, which, according to the conversion table disclosed in MS, corresponds to a range of 0.250 mm to 0.595 mm (Thompson: col. 4, lines 13-16; MS: Conversion Table). This range overlaps the claimed range of 0.015 mm to 1.0 mm, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 37, the top surface (i.e., upper side) of the core is depicted as having a nominal base level, and the amount of protrusion of the grit material is, as best understood, the size of the grit minus the thickness of the core material (Thompson: Fig. 7). Thompson teaches that the first coat of polyurethane 24 should cover only one-half to two-thirds of the grit particles (Thompson: col. 4, lines 54-62). Given that the particles have a size range of 0.250 mm to 0.595 mm, this corresponds to a protrusion amount of 0.0833 mm (i.e., at the low end, one third of the grit particles are covered, and 0.250 mm / 3 = 0.0833 mm) to 0.2975 mm (i.e., at the high end, one of the grit particles are covered, and 0.595 mm / 2 = 0.2975 mm) (see above discussion). This range overlaps the claimed range of at least 0.1 mm, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to claim 38, the top surface (i.e., upper side) of the core is depicted as having a nominal base level, and the amount of protrusion of the grit material relative to the decorative top structure (which is defined by the grit material) is, as best understood, the size of the grit minus the thickness of the core material (Thompson: Fig. 7). Thompson teaches that the first coat of polyurethane 24 should cover only one-half to two-thirds of the grit particles (Thompson: col. 4, lines 54-62). Given that the particles have a size range of 0.250 mm to 0.595 mm, this corresponds to a protrusion amount of 0.0833 mm (i.e., at the low end, one third of the grit particles are covered, and 0.250 mm / 3 = 0.0833 mm) to 0.2975 mm (i.e., at the high end, one of the grit particles are covered, and 0.595 mm / 2 = 0.2975 mm) (see above discussion). This range overlaps the claimed range of at least 0.1 mm, thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson as applied to claim 27 above.
With regards to claim 36, Thompson discloses a floor element as applied to claim 27 above (see above discussion). Though not depicted in the applied embodiment of Thompson, the broader disclosure of Thompson acknowledges that one or more polyurethane coating layers are applied (i.e., implying that more than two coating layers may be present), and Figure 4 of Thompson further discloses an additional coating 22 applied underneath polyurethane coating 24 (Thompson: abstract; col. 4, lines 6-26; Fig. 4). Additional coats, such as additional coating 22, may be applied to provide, for example, improved bonding strength (Thompson: col. 3, lines 54-66). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have applied an additional coating under the first coat of polyurethane 24, at the express suggestion of Thompson to apply additional coating layers, in order to provide improved bonding strength (see above discussion). It is noted that this structure results in a core comprising two polymer layers laminated together, with the anti-slip substance embedded in a layer located between the two polymer layers (see above discussion).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson as applied to claim 27 above, and in further view of Hakansson et al (US2016/0201324A1).
With regards to claim 40, Thompson discloses a floor element as applied to claim 27 above, the floor element comprising a core comprising a polyurethane (see above discussion). Thompson does not appear to disclose its polyurethane in the form of a thermoplastic polyurethane.
Hakansson is directed to a wear resistant layer for floor panels comprising a thermoplastic polyurethane (Hakansson: para. [0003]-[0005] and [0027]). As best understood from Hakansson, thermoplastic polyurethane is well-known in the art, and provides improved chemical, scuff, and scratch resistance. Thompson and Hakansson are analogous art in that they are related to the same field of endeavor of polyurethane-based wear-resistant covering layers for floor panels. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected thermoplastic polyurethane for the polyurethane of Thompson, in order to provide improved chemical resistance, scuff resistance, and micro-scratch resistance (Hakansson: para. [0027]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. 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.
/ETHAN WEYDEMEYER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights