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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/27/26 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/18/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16-19, 24, 27 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Settels, US 2022/0396953 in view of Wambaugh et al., US 2019/0379319.
Regarding claim 16:
Settels discloses a panel (1) comprising a core (2), an upper arrangement (2a) and a lower arrangement (2b), wherein the upper and lower arrangements are attached to the core on opposite sides of the core, wherein the core and the upper and lower arrangements (refer to Figs. 7 and 8, the core is the middle portion and the upper and lower arrangements are the top and bottom portions) comprise a mineral-based layer (para. 0029) comprising a polymer compound and magnesium oxide in the amount of 25 to 65% (para. 0029, the disclosed range overlaps with the claimed range),
wherein the panel is a floor panel comprising a front and a rear side, wherein the front side is a visible side.
Settels does not expressly disclose the mineral-based layer comprising a polymer compound that is specifically acrylic.
Wambaugh discloses a panel comprising a mineral-based layer that comprises an acrylic (para. 0043) and magnesium oxide in the amount of 25 to 65 wt% (para. 0014 – magnesium oxide powder in the range of 29 to 40% overlapping with the 25 to 65%).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to substitute the core material and upper and lower arrangement materials or specifically the acrylic material of Wambaugh for the core/thermoplastic of Settels in order to provide a stabilized cementitious material with increased stability in environments with high temperatures and high moisture (para. 0019). Further, Settels suggests wherein various combinations of materials and various polymers may be used in the core (para. 0042).
PNG
media_image1.png
348
833
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 17-18 and 38:
Wambaugh discloses wherein the polymer is an amount that falls between 0.1 and 5% (para. 0043). The percentage overlaps with 5 to 10% such that the claimed amount is reasonably suggested.
Regarding claim 19:
Both Settels and Wambaugh discloses wherein the mineral-based layer further comprises magnesium chloride (para. 0040 of Settels and the abstract of Wambaugh).
Regarding claim 24
Settels and Wambaugh disclose wherein one of the mineral based layers comprises reinforcement fibers (para. 0039 of Settels and para. 0076 of Wambaugh) configured to increase the tensile strength of the layer.
Regarding claim 27:
Settels discloses wherein a panel comprises a mechanical locking system at respective opposite first and second edges for assembling a first panel in an assembled position with an adjacent second panel by means of a folding displacement and/or a vertical displacement of the adjacent panels; wherein immediately juxtaposed upper edge portions of the first edge of the first panel and the second edge of the second panel in the assembled position form a vertical plane; the first edge comprising a locking strip projecting beyond the vertical plane and a locking element projecting from the locking strip; the second edge comprising a downwards open locking groove configured to receive the locking element by means of said displacement for horizontal locking of the adjacent panels, wherein a first pair of horizontal locking surfaces comprises a first locking surface provided by the locking element and a second locking surface provided by the locking groove (refer to Figs 1-10).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Settels, US 2022/0396953 in view of Wambaugh et al., US 2019/0379319 further in view of Ehrat et al., US 5,508,082.
Regarding claims 21 and 22:
Settels discloses wherein the mineral-based layer further comprises a wood fiber binding agent (para. 0039) but does not expressly disclose the amount of 5 to 25wt%.
Ehrat discloses a panel having a core with a binding agent in the range of 6 to 10 wt% (44th paragraph) overlapping the claimed range of 5 to 25 wt%.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to add the binding agent in the range as suggested by Ehrat in order to provide an easily shapeable panel.
Claims 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Settels, US 2022/0396953 in view of Wambaugh et al., US 2019/0379319 further in view of Josefsson et al., US 2020/0308846.
Regarding claims 20 and 23:
Settels and Wambaugh do not, though Josefsson discloses a panel having a filler in an amount of 40-60 wt% and additive in an amount of 0 to 5 wt% (both in para. 0211).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to use fillers and additives as suggested by Josefsson in the panel of Settels in order to vary hardness and softness and to add color, stabilizer, etc.
In the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/18/26, with respect to Boucke not broadly teaching that lowering Tg of any polymer in any composite improves impact properties have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 25-26, 28-37 and 39 relying upon Boucke for this teaching have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the Office takes a rather broad interpretation of “arrangement”, the term “arrangement” imparts no structure. Further specifying that the arrangements are “attached” also does not impart structure to the claimed panel. A flange connected to a main body, wherein the main body and the flange are simply molded together, are attached to each other. In the same manner, a homogenous panel with an “upper”, a “lower” and a “core” has the components attached whether by being molded together or adhered together. If applicant wishes to differentiate between the layers, applicant may specify that the upper and/or lower layer comprises XYZ, and the core layer comprises XY and does not include Z.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-37 and 39 are allowable.
Claims 25 and 26 are 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art discloses panels having mineral-based layers that also comprise a polymer compound as seen in Settels. However, the prior art does not reasonably suggest specifically having a polymer compound with a glass transition temperature between -50°C and 30°C. While the examiner may speculate as to the obviousness of providing a polymer with this property, there is no teaching in the prior art to support a conclusion of obviousness. The prior art of Boucke suggests a panel having a polymer with a Tg within the claimed range. However, it would not be obvious to modify the polymer of the mineral-based layer taught by Settels in view of Wambaugh with Boucke devoid of improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT W HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-3661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6:00p MT.
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 Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/BRENT W HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights