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… FIG. 2… 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.83 or 1.84 because of the following informalities:
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, therefore the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Cl. 8: “said relief extends into said substrate" has not been explicitly pointed out
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 3, 7, 9, 13, 18 objected to because of the following informalities:
Cl. 1 ln. 12: after “panel;” insert --and--
Cl. 3 ln. 2: after “substrate,” insert --and--
Cl. 7 ln. 2: after “microns,” insert --and--
Cl. 9 ln. 2: after “surfaces,” insert --and--
Cl. 13 ln. 26: after “layer;” insert --and--
Cl. 18 ln. 2: after “microns,” 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 1-24 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 § 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 1-12 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. 7-8: the recitation(s) of “said amount of filler” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear if this is referring to the “amount lower than 10 phr” (ln. 7) or if a different element is being references as “filler”, as no “filler” has been heretofore introduced.
Cl. 9 ln. 2-3: the recitation(s) of “the zones” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear, having not been heretofore introduced. It is unclear where/how these are defined.
Claim 2-12 though not particularly referenced in this section are nonetheless rejected as being dependent upon an indefinite claim.
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 1-2, 5, 9-15, 22 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) Faust et al. US 5169704 A (Faust) and
Pervan US 10328680 B2.
As per claim 1 Braun teaches a floor, wall or ceiling panel comprising:
a substrate (panel sandwich 17, FIG. 2) and a decor (surface coating 26, FIG. 2) provided on the substrate;
wherein on at least one pair of opposite edges of the substrate, coupling parts realized at least partially from the substrate (see "profiling of the side edges to connect to other panels" 12:61),
wherein said coupling parts are configured to effect a mechanical locking between two of such panels (see “connect to other panels" 12:62), but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the substrate comprises a rigid substrate layer formed by extrusion of a composition comprising polyvinyl chloride and plasticizer at an amount lower than 10 phr;
said amount of filler is at least 45 percent by weight of said rigid substrate layer
said plasticizer is chosen from the list consisting of di-isononyl phthalate, di-octyl terephthalate and di-isononyl-1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylate ;
wherein a density of the rigid substrate layer is at least 1500 kg/m3 ;
wherein a thickness of said rigid substrate layer is at least 65% of an overall thickness of said panel; --and--
wherein said overall thickness of said floor 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.
Lombaert teaches selecting chemical compositions for floor panels, specifically:
wherein the substrate comprises a rigid substrate layer 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 polyvinyl chloride and plasticizer at an amount lower than 10 phr ("said thermoplastics… between 0 and 5% by weight and preferably between 0 and 3% by weight" 9:1; this is recognized as "less than 10 phr");
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 1500 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);
wherein said overall thickness of said floor panel is between 3 and 10 mm (“thickness comprised between 4.0 mm and 10.0 mm” 7:40),
the 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).
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.
Faust teaches a known chemical additive, specifically:
said plasticizer is chosen from the list consisting of di-isononyl phthalate (“Di-isononyl phthalate” 14:58), di-octyl terephthalate and di-isononyl-1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylate ;
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 including the claimed plasticizer as taught by Faust in order to enhances the flexibility, durability, and performance of the panel.
Pervan teaches a thickness as claimed, specifically:
wherein 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, the combination of Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, and Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 1, 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 Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, 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 5 Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, and Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Braun further discloses said decor is a veneer of wood (“veneer wood” 3:65) or stone.
As per claim 9 Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, and Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Braun further discloses wherein said mechanical locking is operative in both a horizontal and a vertical direction (see “ locking or fixation of both… vertical direction… horizontal direction” 5:65), and Lombaert further discloses wherein said locking is realized by cooperating locking surfaces (“mechanical connection means for a locking or fixation of both” 5:65), --and--wherein the zones in which the locking surfaces cooperate are situated at least partially in said rigid substrate layer least partially (see “at least partially” as broadly claimed, 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, Faust, and Pervan by including the locking zones as taught by Lombaert in order to provide panels with increased resistance to uplift.
As per claim 10, the combination of Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, and Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Lombaert further discloses wherein said filler is an inorganic filler (“chalk” 5:52). 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, Faust, and Pervan by including the chalk as taught by Lombaert in order to enhance the durability and improve the consistency and strength of the composite.
As per claim 11 Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, and Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 10, 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, Faust, and Pervan by including the density as taught by Lombaert in order to provide a deformation resistant panel.
As per claim 12 Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, and Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 10, and Lombaert further discloses a thermoplastic material of the rigid substrate layer comprises an amount of filler of at least 70 percent by weight (“20-75 wt. % fillers” 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 in view of Lombaert, Faust, and Pervan by including the density as taught by Lombaert in order to provide a panel having desired strength to weight ratio.
As per claim 13 Braun teaches a floor, wall or ceiling panel comprising:
a substrate (panel sandwich 17, FIG. 2) and a decor provided on the substrate (panel sandwich 17, FIG. 2); and,
on at least one pair of opposite edges of the substrate, coupling parts realized at least partially from the substrate (see "profiling of the side edges to connect to other panels" 12:61) ,
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 (see “connect to other panels" 12:62),
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 (“Tongue and groove profiles“ 12:62),
Braun further discloses 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), but 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;
wherein the substrate comprises a rigid substrate layer 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 said thermoplastic material is polyvinyl chloride with an amount of plasticizer,
wherein said plasticizer is chosen from the list consisting of di-isononyl phthalate, di-octyl terephthalate and di-isononyl-1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylate ;
wherein a density of the rigid substrate layer is at least 1500 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 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; --and--
wherein zones in which the locking surfaces cooperate are situated at least partially in said rigid substrate layer.
Lombaert teaches selecting chemical compositions for floor panels, specifically:
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 (see “protrusion” form at 4, left side, FIG. 2 and “recess” form at 5-6, FIG. 2), which, in a coupled condition, counteract a moving apart of the tongue and the groove in a horizontal direction (see “vertical direction… horizontal direction” 5:63-6:1),
wherein said mechanical locking is realized by cooperating locking surfaces of said tongue and groove and said locking elements (see “ locking or fixation of both… vertical direction… horizontal direction” 5:65);
wherein the substrate comprises a rigid substrate layer 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 and said thermoplastic material is polyvinyl chloride with an amount of plasticizer (“20-75 wt. % fillers” Cl. 1),
wherein a density of the rigid substrate layer is at least 1500 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);
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 upper lip and said lower lip are at least partially realized from said rigid substrate layer (see FIG. 2);
wherein a center line through said tongue is in said rigid substrate layer (see center line, FIG. 2) 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); --and--
wherein zones in which the locking surfaces cooperate are situated at least partially (see “at least partially” as broadly claimed, FIG. 2) in said rigid substrate layer.
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 locking zones and filler in the claimed amount and the density at a thickness as taught by Lombaert in order to provide a panel having desired strength to weight ratio.
Faust teaches a known chemical additive, specifically:
said plasticizer is chosen from the list consisting of di-isononyl phthalate (“Di-isononyl phthalate” 14:58), di-octyl terephthalate and di-isononyl-1,2-cyclohexane dicarboxylate ;
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 including the claimed plasticizer as taught by Faust in order to enhances the flexibility, durability, and performance of the panel.
Pervan
wherein 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 14, the combination of Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, and Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 13, 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 Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, 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 15 Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, and Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 14 and Braun further discloses said decor 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, wherein said decor carrier is a thermoplastic film or a paper layer impregnated with a melamine resin; and
a decor being a veneer of wood (“veneer wood” 3:65) or stone.
As per claim 22 Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, and Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 13, wherein 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, Faust, and Pervan by including the modulus as taught by Lombaert in order to provide a deformation resistant panel.
Claim 3-4, 6-8, 16-21 and 23-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, and Pervan as applied to claim 1 and 15 above and further in view of SEGAERT US 20190032342 A1 (Segaert),
As per claim 3, the combination of Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, and Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein said decor is printed directly on one or a plurality of base coats provided on said substrate, --and--
wherein said floor panel further comprises a transparent or translucent wear and/or lacquer layer provided on said décor.
Segaert teaches an obvious decor, specifically:
wherein said decor is printed directly on one or a plurality of base coats provided on said substrate (“decor is provided directly on an underlying layer” [0078]), --and--
wherein said floor panel further comprises a transparent or translucent wear and/or lacquer layer provided on said décor (“transparent or translucent wear layer situated above the decor.” Cl. 37).
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, Faust, and Pervan by the directly printed décor as taught by Segaert in order to provide a durable décor surface.
As per claim 4. The panel of claim 1, , the combination of Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, and Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein said decor is printed on a decor carrier (see “decor of the top layer preferably comprises a motif or pattern, which, in the form of a print, is provided on a carrier sheet… carrier sheet may relate to a paper sheet” [0077])
wherein said decor carrier is a thermoplastic film or a paper layer (see “decor of the top layer preferably comprises a motif or pattern, which, in the form of a print, is provided on a carrier sheet… carrier sheet may relate to a paper sheet” [0077]) impregnated with a melamine resin, and
wherein said floor panel comprises a transparent or translucent wear and/or lacquer layer provided on said décor (see “transparent or translucent wear layer situated above the deco” [0076]).
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, Faust, and Pervan by the directly printed décor as taught by Segaert in order to provide a durable décor surface.
As per claim 6 Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, Pervan and Segaert teaches the limitations according to claim 4, and Braun further discloses wherein said wear layer is a thermoplastic foil having a thickness between 250 and 750 micrometers, or a paper layer impregnated with melamine resin ("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, Faust, Pervan and Segaert teaches the limitations according to claim 4, and Lombaert further discloses a relief is formed in an upper side of said floor 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), --and--
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, Faust, Pervan and Segaert by including the 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, Faust, Pervan and Segaert teaches the limitations according to claim 7, but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein said relief extends into said substrate.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the assembly of Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, Pervan and Segaert by substituting the depth of the layers to be any depth —including "extends into said substrate"— in order to provide improved traction and because changes in size do constitute a patentable difference.
As per claim 16, the combination of Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, and Pervan teaches the limitations according to claim 15, but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein said panel comprises a transparent or translucent wear and/or lacquer layer provided on said decor.
Segaert teaches an obvious layering, specifically:
wherein said panel comprises a transparent or translucent wear and/or lacquer layer provided on said décor (“transparent or translucent wear layer situated above the decor.” Cl. 37).
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, Faust, and Pervan by the directly printed décor as taught by Segaert in order to provide a durable décor surface.
As per claim 17 Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, Pervan and Segaert teaches the limitations according to claim 16, and Braun further discloses wherein said wherein said wear layer is a thermoplastic foil having a thickness between 250 and 750 micrometers, or a paper layer impregnated with melamine resin ("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 18 Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, Pervan and Segaert teaches the limitations according to claim 17, and Lombaert further discloses a relief is formed in an 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), --and--
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, Faust, Pervan and Segaert by including the press generated decorative relief as taught by Lombaert in order to create a natural, textured appearance.
As per claim 19 Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, Pervan and Segaert teaches the limitations according to claim 18, but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein said relief extends into said substrate.
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the assembly of Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, Pervan and Segaert by substituting the depth of the layers to be any depth —including "extends into said substrate"— in order to provide improved traction and because changes in size do constitute a patentable difference.
As per claim 20 Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, Pervan and Segaert teaches the limitations according to claim 16, Lombaert 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” 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 in view of Lombaert, Faust, Pervan and Segaert by including the density as taught by Lombaert in order to provide a panel having an improved strength to weight ratio.
As per claim 21 Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, Pervan and Segaert teaches the limitations according to claim 20, and Lombaert further discloses wherein 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). 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, Faust, Pervan and Segaert by achieving the elasticity as taught by Lombaert in order to provide a panel having improved installation properties.
As per claim 23 Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, Pervan and Segaert teaches the limitations according to claim 21 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 24 Braun in view of Lombaert, Faust, Pervan and Segaert teaches the limitations according to claim 23 and Lombaert further discloses said lower lip is subjected to bending during said bringing said two of such panels in said coupled condition, wherein said lower lip is not broken (“well-defined flexural tension” 6:11). 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, Faust, Pervan and Segaert by including the flexural tension as taught by Lombaert in order to provide panels which firmly interact with one another, preventing uplift.
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