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 first Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed 11 SEP. 2024, are pending and have been considered as follows:
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of “SPECIES A, drawn to a panel with a homogenous substrate as shown in FIG. 2. The election is made without traverse” in the reply filed on 16 JUN. 26 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/24/2024 (2ea.), 04/28/2025, 07/02/2026 was/were 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 Objections
Claim 4, 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Cl. 4 ln. 1: after “exceeding” replace “the” with --a--
Cl. 14 ln. 2: after “substrate;” insert --and--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. US 12442196 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the features defined by the non-identical claim language would each be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when constructing the invention disclosed in US 12442196 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 1-3, and 6-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun US 9482004 B2 in view of Lombaert et al. US 10392813 B2 (Lombaert) and Pervan US 10328680 B2.
As per claim 1 Braun teaches a floor, wall or ceiling panel having an upper side and two pairs of opposite edges, wherein said panel comprises:
a substrate (panel sandwich 17, FIG. 2) ;
a decor (surface coating 26, FIG. 2) provided on the substrate; and
one or more transparent or translucent wear and/or lacquer layers (see “The wearing layer 25… applied in multiple plys which is transparent" 15:1-14) provided on said décor and forming said upper side; wherein
on at least one pair of said opposite edges of the panel, coupling parts (see "profiling of the side edges to connect to other panels. Tongue and groove profiles can be used as the profiles. It is however preferable to use clicking, pivoting or pushbutton profiles that make it particularly easy to lay the panels to form a surface" 12:60) are realized at least partially from the substrate (see “When creating the profiles (for example by milling), the foam is also cut” 12:65; this is recognized as “at least partially…” as broadly claimed), wherein
said coupling parts are configured to effect a mechanical locking (“clicking, pivoting or pushbutton profiles” 12:64) between two of such panels, wherein
the substrate comprises a rigid substrate layer (“The sound energy propagates particularly well therein and it is not, or is only partially, transmitted into the base panel” 12:32; this is recognized as “rigid” as broadly claimed),
wherein said rigid substrate layer comprises a thermoplastic material (“polypropylene (PP)” 6:22) and a filler (“additives/catalysts” 7:33), wherein said thermoplastic material is chosen from the list consisting of polyvinyl chloride, polypropylene (“polypropylene (PP)” 6:22) and polyethylene terephthalate.
Braun, however, fails to explicitly disclose:
said filler is chosen from the list consisting of chalk, lime and talc;
wherein said amount of filler is at least 45 percent by weight of said rigid substrate layer;
wherein a density of the rigid substrate layer is at least 1300 kg/m3;
wherein a thickness of said rigid substrate layer is at least 65% of an overall thickness of said panel;
wherein said overall thickness of said panel is between 3 and 10 mm,
the floor panel showing a modulus of elasticity or Young’s modulus of at least 2000 N per square millimeter, wherein
said panel comprises a bevel at one or more edges of said one pair of opposite edges.
Lombaert teaches the chemical compositions as claimed, specifically:
said filler is chosen from the list consisting of chalk (“fillers comprise chalk” 11:54-55), lime and talc; wherein
said amount of filler is at least 45 percent by weight (“20-75 wt. % fillers” Cl. 1) of said rigid substrate layer; wherein
a density of the rigid substrate layer 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 floor panel showing 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 panel comprises a bevel (see at least one bevel approximate upper left and upper right edges, FIG. 2) at one or more edges of said one pair of opposite edges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Braun by including the filler by the claimed amount and density at a thickness as taught by Lombaert in order to provide a panel having desired strength to weight ratio.
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 Braun in view 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 Braun in view of Lombaert and 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 Braun in view of Lombaert and 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 Braun in view of Lombaert and Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Lombaert further discloses said bevel has a depth within said one or more transparent or translucent wear and/or lacquer layers (see bevel through layer 11, FIG. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Braun in view of Lombaert and Pervan by including the bevel as taught by Lombaert in order to facilitate better alignment and fitting during installation of the panels.
As per claim 6 Braun in view of Lombaert and Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Braun further discloses wherein said decor (surface coating 26, FIG. 2) is printed on a decor carrier ("On its top side 23, the cover panel 22 has a surface coating 26 consisting of a decorative layer 24 and a wearing layer 25 arranged on the decorative layer 24. The decorative layer 24 consists of a multi-ply paint/varnish coating that constitutes a wood decor. Alternately, e.g. a single-color decor, tile decor or any picture can be represented by the decor. The decorative layer 24 was applied liquid by means of rolling. The decorative layer 24 can alternately be e.g. sprayed on… The wearing layer 25 consists of a particularly wear-resistant surface varnish applied in multiple plys which is transparent and contains hard particles (not shown) to increase abrasion resistance and scratch resistance. It is alternatively possible to e.g. arrange an artificial resin coating as a liquid or solid overlay" 15:1-14), wherein
said decor carrier is a thermoplastic film ("the surface coating on the top side, the panels (as well as surface-coated panel sandwiches) can have an equivalent on the bottom side opposite the top side, for example consisting of a cellulose-based carrier material (such as backing paper) saturated with artificial resin" 13:3).
As per claim 7 Braun in view of Lombaert and Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Lombaert further discloses
a relief is formed in said upper side of said panel (“provided with a relief” abstract, ln. 9), 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 and/or chemical embossing (see "mechanical press" 2:34; note “2113 Product-by-Process Claims… NOT LIMITED… ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Braun in view of Lombaert and Pervan by including press generated decorative relief as taught by Lombaert in order to create a natural, textured appearance.
As per claim 8 Braun in view of Lombaert and Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Braun further discloses said rigid substrate layer further comprises an elastomer or a plasticizer (see “it is possible to use EVA, EVA copolymers, or styrene rubber copolymers, or a plastic material based on polyester elastomers” 6:45-47).
As per claim 9 Braun in view of Lombaert and Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Braun further discloses said mechanical locking is operative in both a horizontal and a vertical direction wherein said locking is realized by cooperating locking surfaces (see “ locking or fixation of both… vertical direction… horizontal direction” 5:65). Lombaert further discloses wherein the zones in which the locking surfaces cooperate are situated at least partially in said rigid substrate layer (see FIG. 2; also “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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Braun in view of Lombaert and Pervan by including the locking feature in the substrate as taught by Lombaert in order to effect a snug-fitting floor covering which would resist uplift.
As per claim 10 Braun in view of Lombaert and Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Lombaert further discloses the density of the rigid substrate layer is in a range of 1500 to 2000 kg/m3 (see “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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Braun in view of Lombaert and Pervan by including the density as taught by Lombaert in order to provide a deformation resistant panel.
Claim 4-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun in view of Lombaert and Pervan as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Meersseman et al. US 8925275 B2 (Meersseman).
As per claim 4-5 Braun in view of Lombaert and Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 1, wherein
(Cl. 4.) said bevel has a depth exceeding the thickness of said one or more transparent or translucent wear and/or lacquer layers
wherein said bevel is provided with a decoration separate from said décor; and
(Cl. 5.) wherein said decor extends uninterruptedly over said bevel, wherein said bevel is formed by impressing the upper side of said floor panel, including said décor, in the proximity of said one or more edges.
Meersseman teaches the particulars of this corner finishing, specifically:
(Cl. 4.) said bevel has a depth exceeding the thickness of said one or more transparent or translucent wear and/or lacquer layers (see FIG. 5)
wherein said bevel is provided with a decoration separate from said décor (“FIG. 5 represents that such chamfer 38 can be provided with a separate decorative layer 40, for example, with a lacquer layer or transfer print layer”); and
(Cl. 5.) wherein said decor (see layer 40, FIG. 5) extends uninterruptedly over said bevel, wherein said bevel is formed by impressing the upper side of said floor panel, including said décor, in the proximity of said one or more edges (FIG. 5 is recognized as “impressing” as broadly claimed; note “2113 Product-by-Process Claims… NOT LIMITED… ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Braun in view of Lombaert and Pervan by including the depth of the chamfer as taught by Meersseman in order to limit impact or friction on the edge of the upper member.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun in view of Lombaert and Pervan as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Guiselin et al. US 20060099405 A1 (Guiselin).
As per claim 11, Braun in view of Lombaert and Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 1 , but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
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 Braun in view of Lombaert and Pervan by including the fillers as taught by Lombaert in order to provide a panel having a desired strength to weight ratio.
Claim 12-15 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun in view of Lombaert, Pervan and Meersseman.
As per claim 12 Braun teaches a floor, wall or ceiling panel having an upper side and two pairs of opposite edges, wherein said panel comprises:
a substrate (panel sandwich 17, FIG. 2);
a decor (surface coating 26, FIG. 2) provided on the substrate;
one or more transparent or translucent wear and/or lacquer layers provided on said décor and forming said upper side (see “The wearing layer 25… applied in multiple plys which is transparent" 15:1-14); wherein
on at least one pair of said opposite edges of said panel, coupling parts are realized at least partially from the substrate (see “When creating the profiles (for example by milling), the foam is also cut” 12:65; this is recognized as “at least partially…” as broadly claimed), wherein
said coupling parts are configured to, in a coupled condition of two such panels, effect a mechanical locking at said one pair of opposite edges (“clicking, pivoting or pushbutton profiles” 12:64), wherein
said mechanical locking is operative in both a horizontal direction and a vertical direction (see “ locking or fixation of both… vertical direction… horizontal direction” 5:65),
said coupling parts being realized as a tongue and groove connection (see "profiling of the side edges to connect to other panels. Tongue and groove profiles can be used as the profiles. It is however preferable to use clicking, pivoting or pushbutton profiles that make it particularly easy to lay the panels to form a surface" 12:60),
wherein the substrate (panel sandwich 17, FIG. 2) comprises a rigid substrate layer (“The sound energy propagates particularly well therein and it is not, or is only partially, transmitted into the base panel” 12:32; this is recognized as “rigid” as broadly claimed) said thermoplastic material is polyvinyl chloride, polypropylene (“polypropylene (PP)” 6:22) or polyethylene terephthalate.Braun, however, fails to explicitly disclose:
the groove being bordered by an upper and a lower lip, wherein
said tongue and groove connection comprises locking elements in the form of a protrusion at a lower side of the tongue and a recess in an upper side of the lower lip, which, in a coupled condition, counteract a moving apart of the tongue and the groove in a horizontal direction, wherein
said mechanical locking is realized by cooperating locking surfaces of said tongue and groove and said locking elements;
formed by extrusion of a composition comprising a thermoplastic material and an amount of inorganic or mineral filler;
wherein said amount of inorganic or mineral filler is at least 60 percent by weight and
a density of the rigid substrate layer is at least 1300 kg/m3; wherein
a thickness of said rigid substrate layer is at least 65% of an overall thickness of said panel; wherein said overall thickness of said panel is between 3 and 10 mm,
the panel showing a modulus of elasticity or Young’s modulus of at least 2000 N per square millimeter;
wherein said upper lip and said lower lip are at least partially realized from said rigid substrate layer;
wherein a center line through said tongue is in said rigid substrate layer and wherein said groove comprises a most inwardly located point, said point being situated in said rigid substrate layer;
wherein zones in which the locking surfaces cooperate are situated at least partially in said rigid substrate layer,
said panel comprises a bevel at one or more edges of said one pair of opposite edges, wherein said bevel has a depth exceeding the thickness of said one or more transparent or translucent wear and/or lacquer layers, wherein
said bevel is provided with a decoration separate from said decor or wherein said decor extends uninterruptedly over said bevel.
Lombaert teaches the tongue and groove and chemical compositions as claimed, specifically:
the groove being bordered by an upper and a lower lip (see FIG. 2) , wherein
said tongue and groove connection comprises locking elements in the form of a protrusion at a lower side of the tongue (see “protrusion” form at 4, left side, FIG. 2) and a recess (see “recess” form at 5-6, FIG. 2) in an upper side of the lower lip, which, in a coupled condition, counteract a moving apart of the tongue and the groove in a horizontal direction (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), wherein
a center line through said tongue is in said rigid substrate layer and wherein said groove comprises a most inwardly located point, said point being situated in said rigid substrate layer (see “inwardly located” right side, FIG. 2);
said mechanical locking is realized by cooperating locking surfaces of said tongue and groove and said locking elements;
formed by extrusion of a composition comprising a thermoplastic material and an amount of inorganic or mineral filler (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));
wherein said amount of inorganic or mineral filler is at least 60 percent by weight (“20-75 wt. % fillers” Cl. 1) and
a density of the rigid substrate layer is at least 1300 kg/m3 (“density of between 800 kg/m.sup.3 and 1600 kg/m.sup.3” Cl. 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Braun by including the filler by the claimed amount and density at a thickness as taught by Lombaert in order to provide a panel having desired strength to weight ratio.
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; 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),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Braun in view 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.
Meersseman teaches the particulars of this corner finishing, specifically:
said panel comprises a bevel at one or more edges of said one pair of opposite edges (FIG. 5), wherein said bevel has a depth exceeding the thickness of said one or more transparent or translucent wear and/or lacquer layers, wherein
said bevel is provided with a decoration separate (“FIG. 5 represents that such chamfer 38 can be provided with a separate decorative layer 40, for example, with a lacquer layer or transfer print layer”) from said decor or wherein said decor extends uninterruptedly over said bevel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Braun in view of Lombaert and Pervan by including the depth of the chamfer as taught by Meersseman in order to limit impact or friction on the edge of the upper member.
As per claim 13 Braun in view of Lombaert, Pervan and Meersseman teaches the limitations according to claim 12, and Pervan further discloses wherein 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 Braun in view of Lombaert, Pervan and Meersseman 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 14 Braun in view of Lombaert, Pervan and Meersseman teaches the limitations according to claim 13, and Braun further discloses wherein said decor is chosen from a list consisting of: a decor printed directly on one or a plurality of base coats ("On its top side 23, the cover panel 22 has a surface coating 26 consisting of a decorative layer 24 and a wearing layer 25 arranged on the decorative layer 24. The decorative layer 24 consists of a multi-ply paint/varnish coating that constitutes a wood decor. Alternately, e.g. a single-color decor, tile decor or any picture can be represented by the decor. The decorative layer 24 was applied liquid by means of rolling. The decorative layer 24 can alternately be e.g. sprayed on… The wearing layer 25 consists of a particularly wear-resistant surface varnish applied in multiple plys which is transparent and contains hard particles (not shown) to increase abrasion resistance and scratch resistance. It is alternatively possible to e.g. arrange an artificial resin coating as a liquid or solid overlay" 15:1-14) provided on said substrate; a decor printed on a thermoplastic film.
As per claim 15 Braun in view of Lombaert, Pervan and Meersseman teaches the limitations according to claim 14, and Lombaert further discloses wherein a relief is formed in said 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 and/or chemical embossing. (see "mechanical press" 2:34; note “2113 Product-by-Process Claims… NOT LIMITED… ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Braun in view of Lombaert, Pervan and Meersseman by including the press generated decorative relief as taught by Lombaert in order to create a natural, textured appearance.
As per claim 18 Braun in view of Lombaert, Pervan and Meersseman teaches the limitations according to claim 12, 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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Braun in view of Lombaert, Pervan and Meersseman by including the modulus as taught by Lombaert in order to provide a deformation resistant panel.
Claim 16-17 and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun in view of Lombaert, Pervan and Meersseman as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Guiselin.
As per claim 16 Braun in view of Lombaert, Pervan and Meersseman teaches the limitations according to claim 15 but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
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:
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 Braun in view of Lombaert, Pervan and Meersseman by including the fillers as taught by Guiselin in order to provide a panel having a desired strength to weight ratio.
As per claim 17 Braun in view of Lombaert, Pervan, Meersseman and Guiselin teaches the limitations according to claim 16, and Lombaert further discloses wherein said modulus of elasticity or Young’s modulus is at least 3000 N per square millimeter (see “Young's modulus… greater than 40 GPa” 7:39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Braun in view of Lombaert, Pervan, Meersseman and Guiselin by including the density as taught by Lombaert in order to provide a deformation resistant panel.
As per claim 19 Braun in view of Lombaert, Pervan, Meersseman and Guiselin teaches the limitations according to claim 17, and Braun further discloses said coupling parts allow bringing two of such floor panels in said coupled condition by means of a turning movement as well as by means of a substantially horizontal snap movement (see "profiling of the side edges to connect to other panels. Tongue and groove profiles can be used as the profiles. It is however preferable to use clicking, pivoting or pushbutton profiles that make it particularly easy to lay the panels to form a surface" 12:60).
As per claim 20 Braun in view of Lombaert, Pervan, Meersseman and Guiselin teaches the limitations according to claim 19, and Meersseman further discloses wherein 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 “means restricting the bending” 17:08; this is recognized as “not broken” as broadly claimed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Braun in view of Lombaert, Pervan, Meersseman and Guiselin by including the “not broken” as taught by Meersseman in order to provide a user friendly tactile notification to an assembler.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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