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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a second Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-25, as originally filed 08 JUL. 2026 are pending and have been considered as follows:
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) ; In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1-25 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. US 11993939 B2 and claim 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. US 12006702 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations in the present case are contained within the claims of the issued patents.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02 JUL. 26 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Due to the large submission, although the Examiner has identified the statement as having been considered and placed the statement in the file, Applicant is encouraged to identify any particularly relevant references and their relation to the instant invention for specific consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Cl. 1 ln. 17; Cl. 13 ln. 24: the recitation “said rigidity is obtained essentially by the thermoplastic material and filler” is not supported by the original disclosure. The disclosure fails to describe the claimed “modulus of elasticity or Young's modulus of at least 2000 N per square millimeter… free from glass fiber layers… obtained essentially”. This is considered new matter.
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 1-25 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Cl. 1 ln. 17; Cl. 13 ln. 24: the recitations “said rigidity is obtained essentially by the thermoplastic material and filler” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as
lacking proper antecedent basis from the specification as filed.
Claims 2-12 and 14-25, though not particularly referenced in this section are nonetheless rejected as being dependent upon an indefinite claim.
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 PRESENTED BELOW IN ORDER OF DEPENDENCE
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 13-16, and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombaert et al. US 10392813 B2 (Lombaert) in view of Pervan US 10328680 B2
As per claim 1 Lombaert teaches a floor, wall or ceiling panel (“panels for wall or floor coverings” abstract ln. 1) comprising:
a substrate (first and second thermoplastic layer 14′, 14″, 21′, 21″) and a decor (wear layer 11, print layer 12, decor layer 13, FIG. 1) provided on the substrate (first and second thermoplastic layer 14′, 14″, 21′, 21″); wherein
on at least one pair of opposite edges (lateral protrusion 3, lateral recess 5, FIG. 2) of the substrate (first and second thermoplastic layer 14′, 14″, 21′, 21″), coupling parts (protrusion 4, recess 6, FIG. 2) realized at least partially from the substrate (first and second thermoplastic layer 14′, 14″, 21′, 21″), wherein
said coupling parts (protrusion 4, recess 6, FIG. 2) are configured to effect a mechanical locking (see “said connection means relate to mechanical connection means for a locking or fixation of both constituting panels, both in the vertical direction, this is the direction perpendicular to the plane of said constituting panels, and in the horizontal direction” 5:63-6:1) between two of such panels, wherein
the substrate (first and second thermoplastic layer 14′, 14″, 21′, 21″) comprises a rigid substrate layer (see “glass fibres appear to have a better embedding in the thermoplastic matrix, thereby obtaining a stronger and more rigid layer” 7:54), wherein
said rigid substrate layer (see “glass fibres appear to have a better embedding in the thermoplastic matrix, thereby obtaining a stronger and more rigid layer” 7:54) comprises a thermoplastic material (“thermoplastic matrix” 7:55) and a filler (“fillers comprise chalk” 11:54-55), wherein
said thermoplastic material (“thermoplastic matrix” 7:55) is chosen from the list consisting of polypropylene (“polypropylene” 9:5) and polyethylene terephthalate, and wherein said filler (“fillers comprise chalk” 11:54-55) is chosen from the list consisting of chalk (“fillers comprise chalk” 11:54-55), lime and talc; wherein
said amount of filler (“fillers comprise chalk” 11:54-55) is at least 45 percent by weight (“20-75 wt. % fillers” Cl. 1) of said rigid substrate layer (see “glass fibres appear to have a better embedding in the thermoplastic matrix, thereby obtaining a stronger and more rigid layer” 7:54); wherein
a density of the rigid substrate layer (see “glass fibres appear to have a better embedding in the thermoplastic matrix, thereby obtaining a stronger and more rigid layer” 7:54) is at least 1300 kg/m3 (“density of between 800 kg/m.sup.3 and 1600 kg/m.sup.3” Cl. 1)
wherein said overall thickness of said panel is between 3 and 10 mm (“thickness comprised between 4.0 mm and 10.0 mm” 7:40),
the panel showing a rigidity as expressed by a modulus of elasticity or Young’s modulus of at least 2000 N per square millimeter (“Young's modulus… greater than 40 GPa” 7:39),
wherein the panel is free from glass fiber layers (see “glass fibres… embedding” 7:54; this is recognized as “free from…layers” because the fibers do not form a distinct layer, as broadly claimed) and said rigidity is obtained essentially by the thermoplastic material and filler of the rigid substrate layer; but Lombaert fails to explicitly disclose:
a density of the rigid substrate layer is at least 1300 kg/m3
a thickness of said rigid substrate layer is at least 65% of an overall thickness of said panel .
Pervan teaches a thickness as claimed, specifically:
a thickness of said rigid substrate layer is at least 65% of an overall thickness of said panel (see “majority…core of 6-12mm…0.2 mm thick upper… 0.1-0.2 mm thick lower” 1:40-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Lombaert by substituting the ratio of the core to the entire panel as taught by Pervan in order to use an old and well-known production method of Direct Pressed Laminate (DPL) which produces panels having this known ratio.
As per claim 2 Lombaert in view of Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Pervan further discloses the thickness of said rigid substrate layer is between 2 and 6 mm (“core of 6-12 mm” 1:42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Lombaert in view of Pervan by substituting the thickness as taught by Pervan in order to use an old and well-known core dimension which produces panels having a desired strength to weight profile.
As per claim 3 Lombaert in view of Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Pervan further discloses said decor is printed directly on one or a plurality of base coats provided on said substrate (see “continuous print layer including particles on the substrate” abstract),
wherein said panel further comprises a transparent (see “transparent” abstract) or translucent wear and/or lacquer layer provided on said decor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Lombaert in view of Pervan by including the layers of Pervan in order to provide a decorative and wear resistant layer to preserve the life of the panel.
As per claim 4 Lombaert in view of Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Pervan further discloses said decor is printed on a decor carrier (see “fourth principle…separate thin film shaped print layer is used as a base for the print and the print layer with the print is thereafter laminated and connected to the layers” 11:31 ), wherein said decor carrier is a thermoplastic film (see “fourth aspect… print layer comprises particles comprising fibres or a polymer material” 7:7) or a paper layer impregnated with a melamine resin, and wherein said panel comprises a transparent (see “transparent” abstract) or translucent wear and/or lacquer layer provided on said decor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Lombaert in view of Pervan by including the layers of Pervan in order to provide a transparent layer to provide an appearance of depth to the surface of the panel.
As per claim 7 Lombaert in view of Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 4, and Lombaert further discloses a relief is formed in an upper side of said panel, wherein said relief reaches deeper than 100 microns (“said relief has a depth of at most 0.4 mm and preferably ranging between 0.1 mm and 0.3 mm. Most preferably, said relief has a depth of approximately 0.2 mm” 9:29), wherein said relief is provided by means of mechanical (see "mechanical press" 2:34) and/or chemical embossing.
As per claim 9 Lombaert in view of Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 1 and Lombaert further discloses said mechanical locking (see “said connection means relate to mechanical connection means for a locking or fixation of both constituting panels, both in the vertical direction, this is the direction perpendicular to the plane of said constituting panels, and in the horizontal direction” 5:63-6:1) is operative in both a horizontal and a vertical direction, wherein said locking is realized by cooperating locking surfaces, wherein the zones in which the locking surfaces cooperate are situated at least partially (see “at least partially” FIG. 2) in said rigid substrate layer (see “glass fibres appear to have a better embedding in the thermoplastic matrix, thereby obtaining a stronger and more rigid layer” 7:54).
As per claim 13 Lombaert teaches a floor, wall or ceiling panel (“panels for wall or floor coverings” abstract ln. 1) comprising:
a substrate (first and second thermoplastic layer 14′, 14″, 21′, 21″) and a decor (wear layer 11, print layer 12, decor layer 13, FIG. 1) provided on the substrate (first and second thermoplastic layer 14′, 14″, 21′, 21″); and,
on at least one pair of opposite edges (lateral protrusion 3, lateral recess 5, FIG. 2) of the substrate (first and second thermoplastic layer 14′, 14″, 21′, 21″), coupling parts (protrusion 4, recess 6, FIG. 2) realized at least partially from the substrate (first and second thermoplastic layer 14′, 14″, 21′, 21″), wherein
said coupling parts (protrusion 4, recess 6, FIG. 2) are configured to, in a coupled condition of two such panels, effect a mechanical locking (see “said connection means relate to mechanical connection means for a locking or fixation of both constituting panels, both in the vertical direction, this is the direction perpendicular to the plane of said constituting panels, and in the horizontal direction” 5:63-6:1) at said one pair of opposite edges (lateral protrusion 3, lateral recess 5, FIG. 2) , wherein
said mechanical locking (see “said connection means relate to mechanical connection means for a locking or fixation of both constituting panels, both in the vertical direction, this is the direction perpendicular to the plane of said constituting panels, and in the horizontal direction” 5:63-6:1) is operative in both a horizontal direction and a vertical direction,
said coupling parts (protrusion 4, recess 6, FIG. 2) being realized as a tongue (see region between protrusions 4 and 3, FIG. 2; these are recognized as a tongue) and groove (see region between recesses 6 and 5, FIG. 2; these are recognized as a groove) connection,
the groove (see region between recesses 6 and 5, FIG. 2; these are recognized as a groove) being bordered by an upper and a lower lip (see upper and lower portions as claimed, FIG. 2) , wherein
said tongue (see region between protrusions 4 and 3, FIG. 2; these are recognized as a tongue) and groove (see region between recesses 6 and 5, FIG. 2; these are recognized as a groove) connection comprises locking elements in the form of a protrusion (see element 4, FIG. 2) at a lower side of the tongue (see region between protrusions 4 and 3, FIG. 2; these are recognized as a tongue) and a recess (see element 6, FIG. 2) in an upper side of the lower lip, which, in a coupled condition, counteract a moving apart of the tongue (see region between protrusions 4 and 3, FIG. 2; these are recognized as a tongue) and the groove (see region between recesses 6 and 5, FIG. 2; these are recognized as a groove) in a horizontal direction, wherein
said mechanical locking (see “said connection means relate to mechanical connection means for a locking or fixation of both constituting panels, both in the vertical direction, this is the direction perpendicular to the plane of said constituting panels, and in the horizontal direction” 5:63-6:1) is realized by cooperating locking surfaces of said tongue (see region between protrusions 4 and 3, FIG. 2; these are recognized as a tongue) and groove (see region between recesses 6 and 5, FIG. 2; these are recognized as a groove) and said locking elements; wherein
the substrate (first and second thermoplastic layer 14′, 14″, 21′, 21″) comprises a rigid substrate layer (see “glass fibres appear to have a better embedding in the thermoplastic matrix, thereby obtaining a stronger and more rigid layer” 7:54) formed by extrusion (see “extrusion” 11:10; note: The method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. (Product by Process 2113)) of a composition comprising a thermoplastic material (“thermoplastic matrix” 7:55) and an amount of inorganic or mineral filler (“fillers comprise chalk” 11:54-55); wherein
said amount of inorganic or mineral filler (“fillers comprise chalk” 11:54-55) is at least 60 percent by weight (“20-75 wt. % fillers” Cl. 1) and said thermoplastic material (“thermoplastic matrix” 7:55) is polypropylene or polyethylene terephthalate; wherein
a density of the rigid substrate layer (see “glass fibres appear to have a better embedding in the thermoplastic matrix, thereby obtaining a stronger and more rigid layer” 7:54) is at least 1300 kg/m3 (“density of between 800 kg/m.sup.3 and 1600 kg/m.sup.3” Cl. 1); wherein
said overall thickness of said panel is between 3 and 10 mm (“thickness comprised between 4.0 mm and 10.0 mm” 7:40),
the panel showing a rigidity as expressed by a modulus of elasticity or Young’s modulus of at least 2000 N per square millimeter (“Young's modulus… greater than 40 GPa” 7:39); wherein
said upper lip and said lower lip are at least partially realized (see FIG. 2) from said rigid substrate layer (see “glass fibres appear to have a better embedding in the thermoplastic matrix, thereby obtaining a stronger and more rigid layer” 7:54); wherein
a center line (see FIG. 2) through said tongue (see region between protrusions 4 and 3, FIG. 2; these are recognized as a tongue) is in said rigid substrate layer (see “glass fibres appear to have a better embedding in the thermoplastic matrix, thereby obtaining a stronger and more rigid layer” 7:54) and wherein
said groove (see region between recesses 6 and 5, FIG. 2; these are recognized as a groove) comprises a most inwardly located point (see “inwardly located” right side, FIG. 2),
said point being situated in (see “situated in” FIG. 2) said rigid substrate layer (see “glass fibres appear to have a better embedding in the thermoplastic matrix, thereby obtaining a stronger and more rigid layer” 7:54); wherein
zones in which the locking surfaces cooperate are situated at least partially in (see “at least partially” as broadly claimed, FIG. 2) said rigid substrate layer (see “glass fibres appear to have a better embedding in the thermoplastic matrix, thereby obtaining a stronger and more rigid layer” 7:54);
wherein the panel is free from glass fiber layers (see “glass fibres… embedding” 7:54; this is recognized as “free from…layers” because the fibers do not form a distinct layer, as broadly claimed) and said rigidity is obtained essentially by the thermoplastic material and filler of the rigid substrate layer
Lombaert but fails to explicitly disclose:
a thickness of said rigid substrate layer is at least 65% of an overall thickness of said panel;
Pervan teaches a thickness as claimed, specifically:
a thickness of said rigid substrate layer is at least 65% of an overall thickness of said panel (see “majority…core of 6-12mm…0.2 mm thick upper… 0.1-0.2 mm thick lower” 1:40-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Lombaert by substituting the ratio of the core to the entire panel as taught by Pervan in order to use an old and well-known production method of Direct Pressed Laminate (DPL) which produces panels having this known ratio.
As per claim 14 Lombaert in view of Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 13 and Pervan further discloses the thickness of said rigid substrate layer is between 2 and 6 mm (“core of 6-12 mm” 1:42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Lombaert in view of Pervan by substituting the thickness as taught by Pervan in order to use an old and well-known core dimension which produces panels having a desired strength to weight profile.
As per claim 15 Lombaert in view of Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 14, and Pervan further discloses said décor is chosen from a list consisting of:
a decor printed directly on one or a plurality of base coats provided on said substrate,
a decor printed on a decor carrier (see “fourth principle…separate thin film shaped print layer is used as a base for the print and the print layer with the print is thereafter laminated and connected to the layers” 11:31), wherein said decor carrier is a thermoplastic film (see “fourth aspect… print layer comprises particles comprising fibres or a polymer material” 7:7) or a paper layer impregnated with a melamine resin; and
a decor being a veneer of wood or stone. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Lombaert in view of Pervan by including the layers of Pervan in order to provide a decorative and wear resistant layer to preserve the life of the panel.
As per claim 16 Lombaert in view of Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 15, and Pervan further discloses wherein said panel comprises a transparent (see “transparent” abstract) or translucent wear and/or lacquer layer provided on said decor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Lombaert in view of Pervan by including the layers of Pervan in order to provide a transparent layer to provide an appearance of depth to the surface of the panel.
As per claim 22 Lombaert in view of Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 13, and Lombaert further discloses said modulus of elasticity or Young’s modulus is at least 3500 N per square millimeter (“Young's modulus… greater than 40 GPa” 7:39).
Claim 6 and 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombaert in view of Pervan as applied to 16 above and further in view of Arai US 20150020952 A1,
As per claim 6 and 17, Lombaert in view of Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 4 and 16 above, but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
said wear layer is a thermoplastic foil having a thickness between 250 and 750 micrometers , or a paper layer impregnated with melamine resin
Arai teaches a wear layer of paper layer impregnated with melamine resin (see "resin impregnated paper" [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Lombaert in view of Pervan by including the resin impregnated paper as taught by Arai in order to bond the décor layer with the panel assembly as an old and well-known in the art method of bonding layers to provide a finished look.
As per claim 18 Pervan and Locket and Arai teaches the limitations according to claim 17, and Lombaert further discloses a relief is formed in an upper side of said floor panel, wherein said relief reaches deeper than 100 microns (“said relief has a depth of at most 0.4 mm and preferably ranging between 0.1 mm and 0.3 mm. Most preferably, said relief has a depth of approximately 0.2 mm” 9:29), wherein said relief is provided by means of mechanical (see "mechanical press" 2:34) and/or chemical embossing.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombaert in view of Pervan as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Loncke et al. US 10472833 B2 (Loncke).
As per claim 5 Lombaert, in view of Pervan teaches the limitations according to claims 1, but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein said decor is a veneer of wood or stone.
Loncke further discloses a decorative overing of wood, specifically:
wherein said decor is a veneer of wood or stone (see “wood veneer having a thickness of 1 millimeter” abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Lombaert in view of Pervan by including the wood veneer as taught by Loncke in order to provide a natural appearance to the panel.
Claim 8 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombaert in view of Pervan as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, respectively, and further in view of Rios et al. US 20090162651 A1 (Rios).
As per claim 8 and 19 Lombaert, in view of Pervan, it teaches the limitations according to claim 1 and 13, but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein said rigid substrate layer further comprises an elastomer.
Rios teaches such an obvious inclusion in a floor panel , specifically:
wherein said rigid substrate layer further comprises an elastomer (see “the flexible support layer comprises… elastomer” Cl. 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Lombaert in view of Pervan by including elastomer as taught Rios in order to enhance the flexibility and durability of the panel.
Claim 10-12, 20 and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombaert in view of Pervan as applied to claim 1, 13, 16 and 20 and above and further in view of Guiselin et al. US 20060099405 A1 (Guiselin).
As per claim 10 and 25 Lombaert, in view of Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 1 and 13, but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein said filler comprises talc
Guiselin teaches such an obvious filler, specifically:
wherein said filler comprises talc (“filler… talc” Cl. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Lombaert in view of Pervan by substituting talc in the fillers as taught by Guiselin in order to selectively adjust the stiffness, dimensional stability, and thermal resistance of the composite mixture.
As per claim 11 Lombaert in view of Pervan and Guiselin teaches the limitations according to claim 10, and Lombaert further discloses the density of the rigid substrate layer (see “glass fibres appear to have a better embedding in the thermoplastic matrix, thereby obtaining a stronger and more rigid layer” 7:54) is in a range of 1500 to 2000 kg/m3 (“density of between 200 kg/m.sup.3 and 2500 kg/m.sup.3, and more preferably between 600 kg/m.sup.3 and 2000 kg/m.sup.3” 5:14).
As per claim 12 Lombaert in view of Pervan and Guiselin teaches the limitations according to claim 10, and Guiselin further discloses wherein the thermoplastic material of the rigid substrate layer comprises an amount of filler of at least 70 percent by weight (“20-75 wt. % fillers” abstract, ln. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Lombaert in view of Pervan and Guiselin by substituting the amount of fillers to be at least 70 wt. % as taught by Guiselin in order to selectively adjust the stiffness, dimensional stability, and thermal resistance of the composite mixture.
As per claim 20 Lombaert, in view of Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 16, but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the thermoplastic material of the rigid substrate layer comprises an amount of filler of at least 70 percent by weight.
Guiselin teaches such an obvious amount of filler, specifically:
wherein the thermoplastic material (“thermoplastic matrix” 7:55) of the rigid substrate layer comprises an amount of filler of at least 70 percent by weight (“20-75 wt. % fillers” abstract, ln. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Lombaert in view of Pervan and Guiselin by substituting the amount of fillers to be at least 70 wt. % as taught by Guiselin in order to selectively adjust the stiffness, dimensional stability, and thermal resistance of the composite mixture.
As per claim 21 Lombaert in view of Pervan and Guiselin teaches the limitations according to claim 20, and Lombaert further discloses said modulus of elasticity or Young’s modulus is at least 3000 N per square millimeter (“Young's modulus… greater than 40 GPa” 7:39).
Claim 23-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombaert in view of Pervan and Guiselin as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Cappelle US 10337191 B2
As per claim 23-24 Lombaert in view of Pervan and Guiselin teaches the limitations according to claim 21 but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
said coupling parts allow bringing two of such panels in said coupled condition by means of a turning movement as well as by means of a substantially horizontal snap movement; and
said lower lip is subjected to bending during said bringing said two of such floor panels in said coupled condition, wherein said lower lip is not broken.
Cappelle teaches such deformation as claimed, specifically:
said coupling parts allow bringing two of such panels in said coupled condition by means of a turning movement as well as by means of a substantially horizontal snap movement (see “FIG. 18 represents… the floor panels can be coupled by means of a turning movement… horizontal snap movement… FIG. 19” 14:22-33); and
said lower lip is subjected to bending during said bringing said two of such floor panels in said coupled condition, wherein said lower lip is not broken (see “ In fact, it provides for that the lip of the lower hook-shaped part can bend during coupling of the floor panel” 5:56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Lombaert in view of Pervan and Guiselin by including the deformation as described by Cappelle in order to ensure tight fit between panels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 JUL. 26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As per the argument (p. 9/14):
Lombaert repeatedly teaches that glass fiber reinforcement is integral to its panel construction…pending claims now expressly exclude the glass fiber layers upon which Lombaert relies
the Examiner disagrees because claims 1 and 13, as amended appear to attempt to exclude “glass fiber layers“ by way of a negative limitation but this is not recognized to address Lombaert because Lombaert teaches the “individual reinforcing fibres… are not laterally interconnected in a network, but are dispersed loosely in a plastic matrix”.
The fibers can be loose and not in a layer to contribute to providing the desired stiffness and dimensional stability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE 2311654 A1 to GRUNZ KARL et al. teaches an elastic base layer having an elastic modulus of 30,000-50,000 kp/cm2
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM.
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 D MATTEI can be reached on (571)270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JJS/
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights