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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/23/24, 12/30/24, 7/23/25, 9/9/25, 4/23/26 and 6/5/26 have been considered by the examiner. Documents US 2010/0272969 and US 2012/0238168 submitted 9/9/25 were not considered as they were previously considered when submitted with IDS on 8/23/24. Documents JP 2003-035002 and JP 2015-094162 submitted 9/9/25 were not considered as they were previously considered when submitted with IDS on 12/30/24.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation "the second sheets" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Independent claim 1 only recites “a second sheet”.
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 1-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0272969 (Taylor), of record.
Regarding claim 1, Taylor discloses a flooring element (1) comprising a base matrix (5) and a plurality of restriction members (6),
Wherein the base matrix comprises a plurality of base members (5), the base member comprising a first material comprising a polymeric material, wherein the first material is compressible (closed cell foam is described as being resilient (see paragraph 0036) and having a springy nature (see paragraph 0043),
Wherein the plurality of restriction members (6) is separately formed, the restriction members being at least partly surrounded by and/or juxtaposed with the base member (see Figures 1 and 2, paragraphs 0036-0037),
Wherein the restriction members (6) comprise a second material (see paragraphs 0037-0038), a size of each of the restriction members being squares of 12 mm long (see paragraph 0041), therefore exceeding 0.25 mm in two or three perpendicular directions as recited in the claim, wherein one of these directions is parallel with a thickness direction of the underlay element (sides of a square would be parallel to a thickness direction),
Wherein the flooring element further comprises a first sheet (2) and a second sheet (3) at least partly enclosing the base members and the restriction members (see Figures 1 and 2, paragraph 0036), and
Wherein a compression of at least a portion of the underlay element is configured to be restricted by the restriction members (see paragraphs 0043 and 0046-0047, the configuration depicted in Figures 1 and 2, with the base members surrounded by the restriction members would inherently restrict the compression of the base members).
Taylor does not specifically recite that the flooring element is an underlay element configured to be provided between a floor covering and a subfloor; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the flooring element as an underlay element, by placing the element between a floor coving and a subfloor, due to the discussed impact-resistance and sound-proofing characteristics of the element (see paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 2, Taylor also discloses that the base members square shaped blocks in a checkerboard pattern or other polygonal shapes (see paragraph 0045). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a rectangular shape as the polygonal shape, yielding a rectangular parallelepiped shaped blocks.
Regarding claim 3, Taylor also discloses that the base members and the restriction members are attached to the first and second sheets (see Figures 1 and 2, paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 4, Taylor also discloses that the first sheet (2) and second sheet (3) are spaced from each other (see Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 5, Taylor also discloses that the first sheet and second sheet are thermoplastic foils (see paragraph 0013 where it is stated the first and second sheets are fabrics of polyester or elastane (thermoplastics)).
Regarding claim 6, Taylor also discloses that the first material is foamed (see paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 7, Taylor also discloses that the restriction members may be provided as beads or spheres (see paragraphs 0037 and 0046).
Regarding claim 8, Taylor also discloses that the base members and the restriction members are completely enclosed by the first sheet and the second sheet (see Figures 1 and 2, paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 9, Taylor also discloses an embodiment where the restriction members and the base members are uniformly distributed between the first and second sheet (see Figures 1 and 2, and paragraph 0046 where a checkerboard or striped pattern is discussed).
Regarding claim 10, Taylor also discloses that the restriction members are provided at least partly in the base members (see Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 11, Taylor does not state the compression amount at an applied pressure of 1.9 MPa; however, Taylor discloses all the claimed structural features. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 12, Taylor also discloses that the second material may be visco-elastic (see paragraph 0037), therefore it would be compressible. Taylor does not state the compressive strength of the second material in relation to the first material; however, Taylor discloses all the claimed structural features. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 13, Taylor does not state that the thickness of the underlay element varies; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the thickness of the Taylor flooring element can be varied in order to suit the particular area the flooring is intended to be used in.
Regarding claim 14, Taylor does not state the claimed thicknesses; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thicknesses of Taylor depending on the desired properties of the underlayment. The increase or decrease of thicknesses would provide a stronger or softer flooring designed for the particular purpose of the intended function of the flooring where more or less traffic or noise is expected.
Regarding claim 15, Taylor also discloses a size of each of the restriction members being squares of 12 mm long (see paragraph 0041), therefore exceeding 1.00 mm in two or three perpendicular directions as recited in the claim, wherein one of these directions is parallel with a thickness direction of the underlay element (sides of a square would be parallel to a thickness direction),
Regarding claim 16, Taylor also discloses that the restriction members may comprise a combination of polymer spheres, sand, seeds, polystyrene or polyurethan beads (see paragraph 0017), thus restriction members having various sizes and/or shapes are envisaged.
Regarding claim 17, Taylor also discloses that the flexibility of the second material can be modified by addition of beads (see paragraph 0037). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that in some embodiments the density and/or modulus of elasticity of the second material is greater than a density of the first material.
Regarding claim 19, Taylor also discloses that the first material comprises a polyethylene (see paragraph 0016), which is a thermoplastic material.
Regarding claim 20, Taylor also discloses that the second material comprises a polymeric material and/or sand (mineral-based as defined at page 10, paragraph 2 of instant disclosure) (see paragraph 0017).
Claims 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0272969 (Taylor) in view of US 2004/0018354 (May).
Taylor discloses an underlay element as discussed above.
Taylor does not state the density of the first material; however, it is disclosed that the first material may be a polyethylene foam (see paragraph 0036). In the analogous field of floor underlayments, May discloses providing a polyethylene foam as an acoustic buffer to decrease impact noises which has a density between 18 and 40 kg/m3 (see paragraphs 0025 and 0095), which is within the claimed range of less than 700 kg/m3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a polyethylene foam having a density as claimed for the Taylor underlayment, in order to decrease impact noises as taught by May.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENDY L BOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-7466. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/WENDY L BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights