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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/8/24 has been considered by the examiner.
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 1, 6-7 and 9 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 1 uses the language “for example” and “preferably” in lines 7 and 12. The use of these terms makes it unclear if what follows the term is a part of the claim. Is the plasticizer between 5 and 25 phr or 6 and 15 phr. Clarification is required.
Claim 6 uses the language “preferably”. The use of these terms makes it unclear if what follows the term is a part of the claim. Clarification is required.
Claim 7 uses the language “preferably”. The use of these terms makes it unclear if what follows the term is a part of the claim. Clarification is required.
Claim 9 includes a “fourth reinforcement”. However, claim 6/claim 1 only have two reinforcements layers. Should the claim depend on claim 8? Clarification is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0263307 in view of BE 1027650.
Regarding claim 1: The ‘307 reference discloses a multilayer flooring comprising a lower nonwoven layer, and adhesive layer, a first and second woven reinforcement layers, adhesive layer, a PVC intermediate layer, and a PVC surface layer. See Figure 4 and [0052-54]. It is recognized that the reference does not teach a PVC backing layer. However, the ‘650 reference shows that using PVC backing layers in flooring having woven reinforcement layers is known. Further, the PVC layers have the same thickness and may have plasticizers added in overlapping amounts, i.e. the reference shows that the addition of various amounts of plasticizer will affect the rigidity of the PVC. See ‘650 page 11 for plasticizer amounts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a PVC backing layer in the ‘307 flooring. Substituting one backing (PVC) for another (non woven backing) would yield predictable results, i.e. provide durability. One would expect the flexibility and structural properties disclosed. Further, while the surface mass is not disclosed, this is determined by the specific materials and their thickness, i.e. easily optimized.
Regarding claim 2: The ‘650 reference discloses varying the rigidity of the PVC by varying the amount of plasticizer, i.e. one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of optimizing the flexibility.
Regarding claims 3-4: The surface layer includes a top layer and printed film layer made of PVC. See ‘307 [0036] and [0049].
Regarding claim 5: The second woven reinforcement layer is impregnated with a thermosetting polymer. See [0054].
Regarding claims 6-7: The ‘650 flooring may include a foamed PVC layer on the lower face having a density and thickness overlapping what is claimed. See page 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH EVANS MULVANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1527. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm M-F.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/ELIZABETH E MULVANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785