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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 5/7/26, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 5/7/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodgkins et al (US 2018/0283014 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Hodgkins teaches a semi-rigid polypropylene floorboard, comprising: a polypropylene wear-resistant layer (140)(e.g., wear layer); a polypropylene decorative layer (130); an adhesive layer (bonds the decorative layer to the core layer); a polypropylene substrate layer (120) (e.g., composite core layer); and an enhancement layer (150) (e.g., padded backing layer); wherein the polypropylene wear-resistant layer, the polypropylene decorative layer, the adhesive layer, the polypropylene substrate layer and the enhancement layer are arranged in sequence from top to bottom; and further comprises a balance layer 160) (e.g., balancing layer); wherein the balance layer is located between the polypropylene substrate layer and the enhancement layer (para 22, 45-51, 66-69, 108, 121; fig 2).
Regarding the limitation “the adhesive layer is made of a maleic acid-modified polypropylene resin;” Hodgkins teaches the adhesive ay comprise maleic anhydride and polypropylene (para 101-104) which would have let one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention at once envisage that of a maleic acid-modified polypropylene resin; or it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to pick a maleic acid-modified polypropylene resin, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Hodgkins teaches the adhesive layer may have a thickness of 0.1 mil to 5 mil (i.e., 0.00254 to 0.127 mm) (para 105). This range substantially overlaps that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Hodgkins, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
The Examiner takes official notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have known that adjusting the thickness of the balancing layer would have adjusted its physical and/or mechanical properties (e.g., weight, tensile, strength, impact strength, etc); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the thickness of the balancing layer to optimize its physical and/or mechanical properties.
Regarding claim 5, Hodgkins teaches the rigid composite core layer can have a thickness in the range from about 1.5 mm to about 12 mm (para 62). This range substantially overlaps that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Hodgkins, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claims 6, Hodgkins teaches the polypropylene substrate layer (i.e., composite core layer) comprises an inorganic filler; a polypropylene resin; a polyethylene resin; a toughener (e.g., rubber); a stabilizer; a compatibilizer (e.g., maleic anhydride in any of the backing layers or a processing aid and/or coupling agent); an antioxidant; and a lubricant (para 40, 50, 51, 57, 59-61, 89, 93).
With regard to the composition of the instant claim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the composition of the core composite of Hodgkins to optimize its physical and/or mechanical properties (e.g., density, strength, flexibility, etc). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05 II A).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodgkins as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Vlassenrode et al (US 2024/0011306 A1).
Hodgkins teaches the semi-rigid polypropylene floorboard of claim 1.
Hodgkins further teaches the polypropylene wear-resistant layer is made of a transparent wear-resistant polypropylene resin having a thickness of about 4 mil to about 30 mil (i.e., ~ 0.1 to 0.762 mm); the polypropylene decorative layer is made of a polypropylene resin having a thickness of about 1 mil to about 10 mil (i.e., ~ 0.1 to 0.2547 mm) (para 66-82); and the padded backing layer (i.e., enhancement layer) has a thickness of about 5 mil to about 500 mil (i.e., ~ 0.127 to 12.7 mm) (para 66-82, 93). These ranges substantially overlap that of the instant claims. It has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Hodgkins, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05).
The limitation “printed” of the instant claim is a product by process limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process results in a product that is structurally distinct from the prior art. The process of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claim product differs in kind from those of the prior art (MPEP § 2113). No difference can be discerned between the product that results from the process steps recited in claim 4 and the product of Hodgkins.
Hodgkins fails to suggest wherein a side of the polypropylene wear-resistant layer away from the polypropylene decorative layer is provided with a stain-resistant transparent scratch-resistant layer; wherein the stain-resistant transparent scratch-resistant layer is prepared by coating with a modified ultraviolet (UV)-curable clear lacquer at a coating amount of 15 g/m2-30 g/m2.
Van Vlassenrode teaches floor panels that include a substrate, a decorative layer a wear layer, and an additional lacquer layer may form the uppermost layer of the floor panel; wherein the additional layer is transparent or translucent and can be used to determine the gloss degree of the floor panel. The additional lacquer layer may be a UV-curable lacquer, such as polyurethane, with a solid matter content of 100%. Such a layer has enhanced mechanical and chemical resistance, something which is of course beneficial for properties such as wear resistance, scratch resistance and stain resistance (abstract, para 43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the additional layer of Van Vlassenrode with the floorboard of Hodgkins for a floorboard with an upper layer that has wear resistance, scratch resistance and stain resistance.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the coating amount to optimize the overall strength of the coating and its ability to provide wear resistance, scratch resistance and stain resistance.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodgkins as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Li et al (US 2005/0148720 A1).
Hodgkins teaches the semi-rigid polypropylene floorboard of claim 6.
Hodgkins further teaches composite core (i.e., substrate layer) the inorganic filler is magnesium or zinc oxide (para 57), the use of polyethylene or polypropylene, the use of maleic anhydride in any of the backing layers or a processing aid and/or coupling agent (para 40, 50, 51, 57, 59-61, 89, 93).
Hodgkins fail to suggest the exact constituents of instant claim 7.
Li teaches polyolefin compositions that may be used in any application (e.g., floor coverings) (abstract, para 204). Li further teaches it thermoplastic compositions comprise atactic polypropylene, isotactic polypropylene, and/or syndiotactic polypropylene (para 73), low density polyethylene (para 167), fillers such as calcium carbonate or silicon dioxide (para 161), SBS (para 166), hindered amine stabilizers (para 157), styrene maleic anhydride (para 165), pentaerythrityl tetrakis(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl) propionate (i.e., pentaerythritol tetrakis(3 -(3,5-di-tert- butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl) propionate))) (para 158), and stearic acid (para 163).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the polyolefin (e.g., polypropylene) compositions of Li with the polypropylene composition comprising the composite core of Hodgkins, since it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (MPEP § 2144.06 I).
In the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the polyolefin (e.g., polypropylene) compositions of Li for the polypropylene composition comprising the composite core of Hodgkins, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights